Universities: Access Regulation

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are satisfied that the universities' access regulator has fulfilled his remit of promoting access for part-time as well as full-time students.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we are satisfied with the way that the Director of Fair Access to higher education is fulfilling his remit. The access plans that he has approved will provide over £300 million to encourage higher education applications from lower income groups. Unlike full-timers, fees for part-timers have been and will continue to be unregulated. However, we are pleased to note that part-time student numbers have risen by 45 per cent since 1997, which is nearly four times the growth in full-time numbers.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As he noted, the number of part-time students has indeed risen; it is now 42 per cent of the total student population. Why do the Government continue to discriminate against part-time students, considering that they are doing precisely what the Government want; which is in their own time and largely at their own expense upgrading their qualifications? Why do the Government continue to discriminate against them? Why do they not have access, as do their full-time counterparts, to post-graduation repayment of loans, of those loans that can be repaid post-graduation, and why do they not have access to maintenance grants?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we do not accept that we discriminate against part-time students. In fact, the regime for part-time students has significantly improved since 1997, as the noble Baroness will know. In 1997, when we came into office, there was no national scheme of support whatever for part-time students and poorer part-time students. We have systematically changed that; five years ago we introduced means-tested loans of up to £500. Last year, we converted those loans into straight grants and increased their maximum value to £575, together with course grants of up to £250. As of this April, we have further increased the maximum grants for part-time fees from £575 to £885 a year and maintained the availability of course grants. The deal for part-time students who come from poorer backgrounds is much better.
	However, I must point out to the noble Baroness that there is great diversity in the part-time student market. Many part-time students work, and many are supported by employers. That needs to be taken into account in the regime that applies for them.

Lord Elton: My Lords, the question that the noble Baroness asked was not to compare the condition of today's part-time students with the condition of those in 1997 but their condition with that of today's full-time students. Can he answer that question?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, it is fair to compare the position with the one that applied then because we are subject to great public spending pressures and we must weigh those in all the decisions that we take. As Universities UK, the body that represents all universities, says in its briefing for this Question, it is essential that the Government acknowledge the large and diverse nature of the part-time student body, which means that the Government must carefully target the available resources at those who need them most. It would clearly not be appropriate to target resources at part-time students who are in employment or who are sponsored by their employers when that is not the regime that applies to full-time students.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a former trustee of the Open University and an honorary fellow of Birkbeck. Is my noble friend aware that in March my noble friend Lady Lockwood and I wrote to the Secretary of State on the issue of part-time students and particularly the problems for Birkbeck? We were promised an early reply, so perhaps my noble friend could reply now. Recognising that many institutions are providing access for part-time students, does he accept that Birkbeck and the Open University are unique and are desperately short of funds to help them to proceed? Can he assure us, as was originally promised, that there will be some help?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am sorry that the reply to my noble friend has not been as early as it should have been. I will see that that is rectified. The creation of the Open University is one of the proudest achievements of past Labour governments, and we would do nothing to damage its future. Indeed, the Open University has flourished since 1997, with about a third more students in those eight years. Only in the past few weeks it has launched a fantastic "Powering People" campaign to enable it to advance. As my noble friend said, we do recognise the special position of both the Open University and Birkbeck. The Higher Education Funding Council is, as my noble friend will know, conducting a fundamental review of funding and it is in dialogue with both institutions.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, will the Minister accept my congratulations on the increase in the number of part-time students? In the detailed consideration that lies ahead, of a proper, fair balance of funding between full time and part time, will he recognise that with the increase in fees for full-time students effectively guaranteed by the Government, it could well be in the interests of universities to substitute full-time for part-time places? That could be very much to the national disadvantage. Will he take that into account?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, that issue should be kept under review. My noble friend makes a fair point. However, in my experience, universities are acutely conscious of the demands for both full-time and part-time courses in their own localities and they view both sectors as vital parts of their mission. The Government would not expect that sense of mission, which is vital to driving what they do, to change simply because of the changes to the fee regime that start next year.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I speak as the first and still the only Member of Parliament to be given a degree by the Open University. Everything that the Minister has said is not challenged, but he fails to address the central point of the Question, which is a comparison, not with 1997, which is valid, but with the changes in funding for full-time students and part-time students. Will he take it from me that there is a growing resentment, at least in the Open University and others, that by comparison with those for full-time students the institutions for part-time students have got the dirty end of the stick?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I do of course appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue. We will keep the issue under review. As my noble friend will know, the regime applying to part-time students is one of the factors to which the Director of Fair Access must pay regard. However, I am delighted to say that the number of undergraduate students in the Open University has, under this Labour Government, increased from 114,000 to 151,000. So my noble friend may not be in good company in this House, but he is in very good company outside it.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, Sir Martin Harris, the access regulator, has made much of the plethora of bursaries available to students. First, could the Minister say how many of those bursaries are available to part-time students? Secondly, the Minister mentioned sponsorship by employers. Is he aware that most institutions that take part-time students reckon that no more than 30 per cent of them are supported by their employers? What do the other 70 per cent do?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, there is of course a half-empty, half-full issue here. The fact that 30 per cent are sponsored by employers means that a significant number have a source of support. The Open University estimates that 70 per cent of its undergraduate students are in full-time employment. So that is another group who have resources which enable them to meet their needs while they are studying. I am informed that a large number of universities in their access plans, and the funding that they are raising for bursaries—which is more than £300 million—are making that provision available to part-time as well as full-time students. The Government strongly support that course, and we believe that it will lead to a better deal for many part-time students.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the Minister's predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, stated in a letter addressed to me, dated 28 April 2004, that,
	"we agree that universities should be totally self-regulated insofar as admissions are concerned".
	Does the Minister stand by that statement, and will he assure the House that further education establishments will not be penalised if they do not meet quotas for admissions that OFFA may decide to set in future?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, admissions are entirely a matter for universities as independent entities, and the Government are not changing that position.

Electricity Generation

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What percentage of the United Kingdom's future electricity needs they expect to be generated in the longer term by (a) land-based and (b) sea-based wind farms.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government have a target of 10 per cent renewable electricity to be generated by 2010 and an aspiration to double that by 2020. There are no targets for individual technologies, and the Government's main mechanism for developing renewable generation—the renewable obligation—is technology neutral. However, current assessment suggests that around 7 per cent of electricity could be generated from on-shore and off-shore wind by 2010. Our best estimate at the moment is that 4 per cent of that will be from on-shore wind and 3 per cent from off-shore wind. After 2010, we expect an increasing contribution from off-shore wind and other renewable technologies such as wave and tidal.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, what my noble friend has said is welcome news. Given the resistance from some quarters to the siting of wind farms, would my noble friend consider putting more emphasis on sea-based wind farms than on land-based wind farms? Secondly, if they are to be on land, what about abutting motorways with wind farms? There could surely be no environmental objections to having them along the motorways—or, at least, those stretches where there is plenty of wind to operate.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we cannot rely solely on off-shore wind, as that presents a more complex technical challenge and is twice the cost of on-shore wind. To achieve our targets we need both on-shore and off-shore wind. Putting wind farms along motorways sounds an interesting idea, but it is for developers to decide what are the best opportunities from a commercial and environmental point of view.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the fact that wind power is intermittent and requires back-up, are the Government contemplating other ways in which electricity could be generated with reduced emissions?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is obviously an issue with the intermittency of wind power, but it does not become a major consideration until one reaches about 20 per cent of electricity generated from wind. Of course, we are looking at all the other possible technologies and supporting them financially. We are spending just over £500 million between 2002 and 2008 on emerging renewable and low carbon technologies. As noble Lords know, that includes a £50 million marine deployment fund. So we are looking at other sources as well.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, in the Energy Act of last year, Parliament gave the Government power to pay an additional subsidy for the transmission of electricity from remote renewable sites. When is that work going to begin?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, one of the important issues with achieving our target for wind power and renewables is that we do not have problems with the upgrade of the transmission lines, particularly from Scotland. Those are now going ahead, but there is obviously the question of where the costs fall, which is still being determined. That is clearly one of the issues that is important if we are to achieve that target.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, because wind power is intermittent, what work is being done on using it to create hydrogen, which could be stored much more effectively than electricity? Does the Minister agree with me that, while there is a literary precedent for windmills being mistaken for giants, there is no military precedent—as far as I am aware—of them being mistaken for hostile enemy aircraft? Will he say when the Ministry of Defence is going to reduce its blanket objection to planning permission in south-west Scotland for all applications for wind farms, regardless of where they are and for how many?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, obviously, energy storage is one of the issues on which there is a considerable amount of research. I do not believe that it is fair to say that the MoD has a blanket approach to the question of wind turbines. We have established a working group to bring together all the stakeholders on this issue, which is making good progress. No planning inquiries are being held up due to objections from the MoD.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, do the Government have a policy relating to the size of on-shore wind farms, and the maximum or minimum number of turbines, as they are very intrusive? Is there some government-based policy in that regard, as the use of wind farms becomes more frequent?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any policy on that. It is obviously a question for those responsible for planning permission to consider.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the main objection, in Scotland at any rate, is to large groups of wind farms. How much progress is being made on individual farms, to which the objections are obviously very much less and where it can be quite profitable for the farmer? How many individual competent windmills of some size have been put up on individual farms and estates?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot give those figures. I shall write to the noble Lord with a figure, if we have one, regarding where only single wind turbines have been raised.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, has the Minister given any consideration to the siting of wind farms in urban areas, where there is no countryside left to despoil?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is perhaps one of the least practical suggestions that has been made in this House. I am sure that this matter is given serious consideration by developers looking to obtain planning permission for wind farms.

Kent and Sussex: Water Shortages

Baroness Trumpington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have taken account of possible water shortages arising from current and planned housing programmes in Kent and Sussex; and, if so, what action they propose to take.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, before I answer the Question, perhaps I may say how delighted we are at the great honour that the noble Baroness has received at the hands of Her Majesty this weekend. As Dame Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, we will hold her in even greater awe and affection.
	In looking at house-building programmes in Kent and Sussex, we are determined to achieve sustainable development. To that end, we are advised by the Environment Agency, which has been working alongside all the local water supply companies on operational needs and future plans. Evidence suggests a requirement for both improved demand management and new investment in capital projects, but that these together will enable sufficient water supplies for the necessary growth in housing.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I very much thank the Minister for her kind remarks and wonder whether she would agree that this is a moment to quote "Hello, Dolly!", namely:
	"Wow, wow, wow, fellas . . . Look at the old girl now, fellas".
	Having said that, is the Minister aware that a hosepipe ban was imposed yesterday on the area that I have in mind, and that it must have been known well before any plans were made for increased housing that there has been a constant water shortage in that area? There have been more water shortages in that area than anywhere else in England and long before they occurred in other parts of England. That has been so well known that I find it incredible that the building is continuing.

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the hosepipe ban. Such bans are part of the routine arrangements that water companies make for planning water supply in what may be a dry summer—although the jury is still out on whether it will be a very dry summer.
	On the original Question about the need to build houses in the south-east to meet the great demand of those already living there—and two-thirds of demand would come from people who are already there—the issues of sustainability and water are at the heart of our thinking. We are working extremely closely with the South East England Regional Assembly, the Environment Agency and the water companies to plan for the water that will be needed. The best evidence is that we can meet those targets with capital investment and demand management.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, in her original Answer the Minister mentioned enhanced demand management. Will she consider whether a higher proportion of water meter use in the area we are discussing would be helpful? Are there any plans to increase the use of water meters?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the evidence certainly suggests that water metering reduces demand and that is one of the options that the water companies are encouraging. However, there are other ways of cutting water consumption. In some new-build homes, for example, we will be able to save much more water by more intelligent water use, including the use of better and smarter water appliances.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, in their recent reply to the ODPM Select Committee in another place, the Government said:
	"the scope for a more targeted approach through the planning system . . . should be fully explored".
	How is that exploration progressing? It is now a matter of urgency. Rather than there being a sensible government policy on the issue, the current planning system leaves it to local authorities to test individual decisions through the public inquiry and appeals process.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, we have made considerable reforms to the planning system under the 2004 planning Act, and the water companies are now required to produce statutory plans. While I cannot provide the noble Baroness with much detail about future planning reforms, it is important to say that public examination through the planning process allows everyone who is interested and concerned about the type of issues raised by the noble Baroness to put forward their ideas and test the evidence. It is an extremely valuable process.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has only just taken on this brief, does she realise that the water companies—and I declare an interest as a board member of one of the water companies in the area—have for ages been badgering the department for compulsory metering? We cannot get it. It is not in the water companies' hands; it is in the hands of the Government. That is the first point.
	Secondly, at the moment the south-east has 55 per cent of the normal water reserves for this time of the year. That is the position without all this new house-building. What are we going to do about that? Again, it is in the hands of the Government.
	Thirdly, do the Government realise that in the south-east of England the average amount of water available per head is less than that available in the Sudan?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, insofar as we work in partnership with the water companies and the Environment Agency, we would much prefer that decisions on matters such as compulsory metering are taken jointly and in partnership as part of the whole approach to sustainability. However, I shall take the noble Baroness's point back to the department.
	The noble Baroness's second point was on the state of our reserves. The companies in the south are looking at their drought plans, as they should. Within those plans there is a hierarchy of things that can be done, depending on severity, track records and effectiveness. We shall watch that with great interest. The Environment Agency's eye is well on that problem. It is to be hoped that it will rain before long, which might help, too.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, when the Minister looks at overall housing needs, does she take into account population drift from areas such as the north-west of England? In a city such as Liverpool, more than three-quarters of a million people were resident in the 1950s, but only about 340,000 are there today. Does she accept that programmes such as Pathways, which further threaten Georgian and Victorian terraces all over the north-west of England, are leading to the unnecessary demolition of homes and the migration of people from the north-west, where there is plenty of rain, down to the south-east, where there is a shortage of homes and, as the noble Baroness has said, water shortages, too?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I shall first address the point about who is creating the demand for more water in the south-east. As I said, two-thirds of demand is from households that are already here. We have an increasingly ageing population with many more people living on their own. The sons and daughters of those who want to stay in the region are also looking for homes. So, we have a major duty to provide those homes and to make them affordable.
	Our regional policies are designed to address the imbalance between north and south. Policies such as Pathways exist to try to generate, renew and refurbish. By no means is it just demolition. It seeks to create and recreate those communities where houses have been abandoned. We need to put in investment and to ensure that those communities are sustainable and have as good a future as some of our communities in the south-east.

Minister for Women

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the appointment of Ms Meg Munn MP as Minister for Women was delayed for two days after other ministerial appointments had been announced.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as with all ministerial appointments, the decision was announced once it was made.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that response but it merely makes my next question even more relevant. Does she recognise that the appointment of a Minister for Women apparently as an afterthought—and, what is worse, unpaid—has certainly not enhanced the reputation of the Government as a champion of equal treatment? While we all welcomed—as I did—the creation of a post of junior Minister for Women in the House of Commons, is the Minister satisfied and happy with the situation in which two out of three of the post-holders have been unpaid?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government's record on women's issues speaks for itself. What we have achieved in the provision of childcare, and the balance of work and family absolutely speaks for itself. As for the wider issue, there are currently five unpaid Ministers in the Government—four men and one woman.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is any consideration being given to the appointment of a Minister for men, whether paid or unpaid?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, that question arises periodically. I presume that if the party opposite wanted to have a Minister for men, perhaps the noble Lord would apply.

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it was a disappointment to wait for news of the appointment of my honourable friend Meg Munn? Will she join me in congratulating and celebrating her appointment? I have worked with her and found her to be extremely able and committed, and I believe that she will be a very successful Minister for Women. Can my noble friend give us figures for the number of unpaid Ministers that we have had in Government since 1997—how many were men and how many women?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am happy to congratulate Meg Munn on her appointment. I understand that there has been disappointment that her appointment took place slightly later than others, but a number of people wait to see whether they have been appointed. It is a process that takes place over a number of days and I do not think there was anything sinister about this particular appointment. On the question of unpaid Ministers since 1997, I spoke in answer to an earlier Question about the current position. Since 1997 we have had 19 unpaid Ministers—15 men; four women.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, will the Government draw up a strategy on female poverty as advocated by the Fawcett Society? This could be similar to the one set up to look at child poverty.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked a very interesting question. I was involved in a meeting only about 10 days ago with Ministers from a range of departments across government, looking at what happens over a woman's lifetime. We know that the issue of female poverty tracks women from the time they are in work. Figures in relation to the pay gap show that for women who are in part-time work it is some 40 per cent, whereas in full-time work the gap is narrower. The Government are very concerned about this issue and we will be looking at it. Whether there will be a strategy similar to the child poverty strategy still has to be decided.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, in the same vein, will the Minister ensure that current proposals for extended paid maternity leave are as generous as possible, not only to take mothers out of poverty but to ensure that they have the best opportunity to see their children have the best start in life?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government are seeking to achieve a balance for parents, not just women, but also to ensure that women have a choice. The commitment is to increase maternity leave to nine months by April 2007 and to allow some of that leave to be transferred to fathers so that parents can choose between them how to organise work and care for their children, which I think is the nub of the question by the noble Earl.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether there is any objection to the Minister for Women being a man? Many men would do the job extremely well. If they are not allowed to, is this not discrimination?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, since 1997 the Minister for Women has always been a woman. There are arguments both ways, and this is one of those arguments that we will certainly not be able to win because there are those who feel that it is discriminatory against men not to have a man, and there are those who feel it is appalling to have a man as a Minister for Women. I do not fall on either side of the argument.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, perhaps when there are as many women in Government as there are men, it will not matter who is the Minister for Women.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with a bit of luck by that time we will not need any Minister for Women at all.

Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision as regards contact with children; to make provision as regards family assistance orders; to make provision as regards adoptions with a foreign element; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Adonis.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Business of the House: Standing Order 73

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Perhaps I may give a brief word of explanation. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet been reappointed and the direction made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will lapse if it is not agreed to by 23 June. This is an unusual situation and I am grateful for the agreement of the usual channels to this Motion being tabled.
	Moved, That Standing Order 73 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with to enable the direction given on 1 April by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, regarding Reduction of Financial Assistance, to be taken on Tuesday 14 June notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instrument has been laid before the House.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Safety Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Road Safety Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 to 8, Schedule 2, Clause 9, Schedule 3, Clauses 10 to 31, Schedule 4, Clauses 32 to 44, Schedule 5, Clauses 45 to 48.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Charities Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Charities Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 to 6, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 7 and 8, Schedules 3 and 4, Clauses 9 to 12, Schedule 5, Clauses 13 to 32, Schedule 6, Clauses 33 to 72, Schedules 7 to 9, Clauses 73 to 76.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Defence Service Bill [HL]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The Bill is designed to make the criminal legal aid system fairer and more efficient both by transferring responsibility for the grant of representation and by introducing a new system of means testing for criminal cases.
	Before I speak in any great detail about the proposals we have before us today, it may assist the House if I briefly place the Bill into some historical context. Your Lordships will be aware that proposals for a system of legal aid were first advanced by the Rushcliffe report in 1945. They were enacted in the Legal Aid and Advice Act of 1949.
	The founding principles of legal aid were simple. In a time of historic welfare reform that saw the birth of both the National Health Service and the modern welfare state, it was decided that a "judicare system" should be established whereby lawyers would cater for the needs of the poor as well as the wealthy. The system would guarantee that the poor would be able to receive legal advice and representation so as to prosecute and defend their legal rights and to ensure that they would achieve equality in doing so. Both counsel and solicitors would, at the same time, benefit from fair remuneration for their services.
	The Access to Justice Act of 1999 delivered a range of reforms. It created the Legal Services Commission to replace the old Legal Aid Board. It established the Community Legal Service better to focus resources on priority family and social welfare matters and help to take great strides in tackling social exclusion. It also created the Criminal Defence Service to replace the old criminal legal aid arrangements.
	Within that framework, the Government have continued to introduce other innovative measures aimed at improving the performance and cost-effectiveness of legal aid. But throughout its history—the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s—the cost of providing legal aid rose exponentially. Expenditure this year (2004–05) is expected to reach £2,036 million. That is £511 million more than in 1997–98 and represents an increase of some 34 per cent at a time when inflation was running at a mere 1.3 per cent.
	I am sure that we accept that this trend cannot be allowed to continue. It is vital that, even after taking account of a number of measures that we are taking to improve efficiency, we take more strategic action to ensure that legal aid is placed on a sustainable basis for current and future generations.
	The growth in expenditure has led to an imbalance. We now spend a disproportionate amount of money defending people accused of crimes compared to the amount that we spend helping and advising the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in our society. The Bill is one means by which we are seeking to redress that imbalance and to create a fairer deal for the taxpayer, while ensuring that defendants are properly advised and represented. It will ensure that publicly funded legal help and advice can go to those who need it most to resolve their disputes and problems, and will refocus resources on priority need.
	Legal aid must ensure that representation is available for criminal cases sufficiently serious to require it and when defendants cannot afford it. But we believe that it is only right that those found guilty who can clearly afford to pay for their own advice and representation should pay for it themselves. Legal aid must be reformed so that it responds to what justice requires and so that it continues to be an effective, fair system that provides access to justice for all who need it and gives the taxpayer value for money.
	Your Lordships may recall that the CDS Bill was first published in draft in the third Session of the last Parliament and underwent pre-legislative scrutiny in the spring of last year. The draft Bill and a description of the supporting policy, as it existed at that time, were also published as part of a wider public consultation. The Constitutional Affairs Select Committee published the report of its inquiry into the draft Bill on 27 July 2004 and the Department for Constitutional Affairs responded in November 2004. Subsequently, the Criminal Defence Service Bill, which had an accompanying framework document detailing the supporting policy, was introduced into another place in December 2004 but the Bill failed to complete its passage in the curtailed Session before the general election.
	Before I move on to summarise the powers under the Bill and outline the scheme it is intended that they should create, I shall say a few words about the evolution of this policy. The Bill and the new scheme that will be set up under it were developed taking into account not only the findings and recommendations of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee but also a wide range of input from key stakeholders. That input was received as part of the formal consultation process and as part of a continuing and useful engagement on the part of the professions.
	By necessity and design, despite the slightly protracted timetable, the policy in this area has not stood still. In the time since its first introduction, the Government and the Legal Services Commission have worked together to evolve and refine the way in which the final scheme will operate. Those who have followed the progress of the Bill will recall that the early models proposed for its implementation relied heavily on the participation and investment of the professions. Our proposals were not widely well received and we accepted at that time that we needed to devise a scheme that minimised the risks to the supplier and substantially reduced the burden of bureaucracy on the defendant and his or her representative.
	In short, in bringing forward the Bill, and in developing the proposals for its implementation, the Government have listened and responded. What we have published in the new framework document now has a broad level of support from the legal professionals who will be most affected by its introduction.
	Despite the large amounts of progress made in developing the detail of the policy, the Bill and the powers it is intended to confer remain unchanged, with the exception of a small number of technical consequential amendments. The Bill contains two enabling powers that facilitate the transfer of responsibility for the power to grant representation from the courts to the Legal Services Commission and the reintroduction of a test of financial eligibility; a means test. Both powers relate to criminal cases only. I should add that the Bill extends to England and Wales only.
	Clauses 1 and 2 confer these powers by amending Schedule 3 to the Access to Justice Act 1999. Because its overall effect is fairly opaque when read in isolation, we have appended to the framework document a text of Schedule 3, as it would read when amended by the Bill. I hope that the House will find it helpful. Clause 3 takes the power to impose contribution orders, and is required for the purposes of the future Crown Court scheme and for the arrangements for dealing with unusually high cost cases. Clause 4 makes consequential amendments to other legislation.
	The scheme to be developed under the powers provided by the Bill will take the following shape: the grant of legal aid will cease to be an almost wholly judicial function and will become the responsibility of the Legal Services Commission. Financial accountability for the means and the merits tests will lie with the LSC, subject to the appeals process. In practice, this will mean that the court staff, who already have substantial experience of the grant of legal aid, will remain responsible for its day-to-day operation in an arrangement to be governed by a service level agreement with the Legal Services Commission. There would be an appeal to the court against a decision to refuse representation based on the interests of justice test. Transfer of grant will ensure consistency and certainty in grant behaviour and will ensure that the Legal Services Commission gains far greater control over expenditure in this area.
	There will be an early means test as soon as a legal aid application is made, based on an assessment of gross income and on a number of eligibility allowances designed to reflect average costs of living, calculated on the individual circumstances of the applicant. There would be no contributory element, apart from in exceptional circumstances involving high cost cases. We will introduce a limited number of eligibility allowances to ensure that the scheme is fair, sensitive to individual circumstances and reflects capacity to pay. Means information would be collected from defendants at the earliest opportunity after entry into the criminal justice system on a consolidated application form covering both the early advice and assistance scheme and the grant of representation.
	Under the new two-tier scheme, defendants would be able to apply for legal aid under an extended advice and assistance scheme running up to and including the first hearing, at which time a means-tested representation order would come into force. Eligibility for this scheme would be determined on merits only; applicants would not be tested for means. This will ensure that the new system does not introduce delay and that it takes advantage of the natural pauses that already exist within the criminal justice process.
	We do not believe that what we are proposing for the Magistrates' Court would be an efficient or fair model for means testing in the Crown Court. In the short term, we therefore plan to strengthen further and enhance the existing system of recovery of defence costs orders in terms of their administration and enforcement, as well as making greater use of the courts' existing power to restrain people from disposing of their assets. The Bill confers the power to introduce formal means testing into the Crown Court.
	The eventual scheme will rely on a combination of powers within existing legislation and new powers taken by the Bill. The Government will publish a more detailed model for the Crown Court scheme in due course and repeat their firm undertaking to consult further and widely on these proposals. Your Lordships will note that the new scheme as a whole is described in a good deal more detail in the framework document that accompanies the Bill.
	The Government believe that the Bill, and the new scheme, strike the right balance between fairness to the defendant and administrative simplicity. The new arrangements will be predictable in outcome and easy to understand for defendants, solicitors and the court-based teams responsible for administering them. They will ensure that those who can afford to pay for the cost of their own defence will do so, if convicted. Most importantly of all, they will ensure that a sustainable legal aid system continues to exist to protect the rights of current and future generations. On that basis, I have no hesitation at all in commending the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the Bill had pre-legislative scrutiny. One would therefore expect it to contain the basic provisions of the scheme to be brought into being. But, again, we face the making of more regulations. Everything is to be set out in detail in regulations that we have not seen, even in draft. Those regulations will apply not only to the magistrates' court but also to the Crown Court. It is impossible to give adequate scrutiny to proposals which are still kept hidden. The framework document, to which the Minister referred, suggests that the scheme involving Crown Court cases is still under development and that a likely feature will be a contributions regime.
	The noble Baroness said a moment ago that the same principles that apply to the magistrates' court cannot be applied to the Crown Court and that therefore more consultation will be necessary. Yet in the Bill the Department for Constitutional Affairs takes power to issue regulations—and of course such is the inadequate machinery of this House that those regulations cannot be amended in due course.
	Perhaps I may be forgiven if I make some comments about the Crown Court position, about which I know quite a bit, where the preponderance of the money available for legal aid is now spent. If I do not make those comments now, I will not have the opportunity of making any effective comments if regulations are brought into being.
	The Government complain of the increased cost of defence work and, indeed, of the increased length of trials. The implication is very often that that is in some way due to the attitude of the defence legal teams to the conduct of the criminal justice system—an attitude which is both irresponsible and cost provoking. The increased length of trials, and therefore the increased cost, is due to a number of factors which interrelate.
	First, there is complex legislation. That can be laid at the door of the Government. No sooner have the parameters of one Criminal Justice Bill been discussed and tested and applications and rulings obtained in relation to them than another Criminal Justice Bill is launched by the Government. Most provisions over the past few years have been designed to make it easier for the prosecution to persuade a jury to convict whoever happens to be standing in the dock at the relevant time; I think of the presumptions that were introduced in the sexual offences Bill or the determination of the previous Home Secretary to ensure that an individual's bad character—his list of convictions—should be produced.
	That is one problem that lengthens trials; the second is the Crown Prosecution Service. That service, under pressure to bring a case to court as quickly as possible, throws statements at the defence as soon as it possibly can and follows them up with endless notices of additional evidence, each of which demands time for discussion and the taking of instructions from the client.
	Thirdly, the Prison Service is a disgrace in its privatised and statutory forms. Case after case is delayed in courts right across the country while the prison van is awaited. There is no time for proper consultation unless an application is made to a judge, which has to be granted.
	Then there is the practice of listing applications—bail applications and other elementary matters—before a trial judge, particularly before the senior judge who is trying a serious trial in a busy court complex. Ranks of senior counsel may be awaiting completion of the judge's list. It is not unusual to lose up to an hour each day so that over a week a full court day is lost.
	Finally, there is the method of payment. The graduated fee scheme provides a basic trial fee based on a simple bean count of the number of pages the prosecution produces and the number of witnesses. There is then a "length of trial" uplift. You get more if the case goes on for longer. That means it does not pay to complete a case quickly. If a defendant pleads guilty on the strong advice of his counsel, that counsel will be paid substantially less—not more—than if he had strung the case out for a long time. The Bar Council has described the system of payment as creating perverse incentives which deny a proper reward for those who conscientiously focus on the issues and shorten the proceedings.
	Under the present system, preliminary work is not paid for at all. A junior counsel in Newcastle told me only last week that he had spent 21 hours of preparation so far for a pre-trial review involving one of those murder cases that we discussed in a recent Bill, where a husband and wife are charged with the murder of a child and it is difficult to know which of them carried it out. In such a complex case, counsel does not get paid for all the hours of preparation he has to put in before the pre-trial review.
	I could go on, but my noble friend Lord McNally told the party meeting that there would be a tear in the eye of everybody listening if I went on for too long about counsel's remuneration. I fail to see any tears. But there we are; I leave it at that.
	The Lord Chancellor, having introduced a bad scheme of remuneration in very high costs cases, which led to a virtual strike of the criminal Bar, is now talking about asking for bids from Queen's Counsel. The client in a commercial case can judge how much he wants to pay and how much expertise he is hiring. In criminal cases it is not the client in the dock who decides under this system; it is proposed that some unknown person in the Legal Services Commission will decide who is the cheapest and the best person to represent him. So we will move into bids. It is an auction for the cheapest lawyer; this is eBay justice.
	My experience of the Legal Services Commission at work in these very high cost cases is that the so-called case managers, who are not lawyers and have no experience of the way the criminal courts operate, are hopelessly inadequate in the way that they give or refuse approval to the work which the barrister is to undertake or has undertaken.
	Perhaps I have said enough to persuade your Lordships that the scheme still under development for the Crown Court is so different from the scheme for the magistrates' court that it demands a separate Bill. That is the background to my approach to the proposals relating to the magistrates' courts in this Bill.
	None of us—I am sure all around the House—has any objection to the re-introduction of a means test in principle; that is, that someone should pay for his legal aid unless he cannot afford to at all. This Government abolished the means test in the first place on the grounds that it cost more to administer than it saved. Having abolished it, the obscenity was discovered that highly paid people, whether company directors or football stars, were claiming legal aid at the public's expense.
	We should like to know why it is thought that the new scheme will be cost effective, since it is so structured that the refusal of legal aid by some backroom individual will almost certainly lead to an appeal with additional cost. The noble Baroness said that it is administrative simplicity and that they would set an upper limit based on gross income. The trouble is that that proposed upper limit is £27,500 before tax. I suppose that is slightly above average earnings for an individual, but it means that middle earners will be penalised again. A person who earns £28,000 will have no legal aid under this simple scheme and a person who earns £27,000 gross before tax will have full legal aid with all his costs paid. That seems to me to be nonsensical.
	My second criticism is that the merits test becomes an administrative and not a judicial function. How can anyone in the Legal Services Commission, at a low level and without any actual experience of the courts and how they work, make a decision about what is and what is not in the interests of justice?
	No doubt it will be said that under the proposed service level agreement to which the framework document refers, the responsibility for making the decision will be delegated to court staff. If it can be delegated to court staff, why leave the magistrates out of the equation? If the magistrates' clerk is to make the decision on where the interests of justice lie, why cannot the magistrates themselves? It is not proved that they are not performing that judicial function of granting legal aid responsibly and well. Are their current decisions on legal aid so perverse that money is being thrown away? That is not proved.
	We would have no quarrel with the magistrates' court deciding that legal aid should be granted subject to the question of eligibility and that that eligibility, if in doubt, should be decided by the Legal Services Commission. There is no problem about that. But what is or is not in the interests of justice is a judicial decision.
	My third criticism is of the appeals process. If the person is refused legal aid and appeals to the court to reconsider that decision, an appeal is not to be allowed on the merits. The magistrates' court does not consider whether it would have granted legal aid in the circumstances: the framework document makes it absolutely clear that the court will not revisit the decision of the court staff afresh; it can consider only whether the decision is irrational, was not reached fairly or is outside the commission's powers. Those are the judicial review procedures. Your Lordships will recall that when we were discussing control orders before the general election, we spent much time considering whether control orders should be subject to judicial review or whether the court should have the power to consider decisions on their merits. It looks as though we are going into battle again on that blood-stained ground.
	Those are substantial criticisms. We know that the purpose of the Bill is to reduce the amount of money paid to lawyers and that, because of that, it will have great popular support, but that is not sufficient for a fair and just system that ensures that the individual can have justice in the magistrates' courts of this country.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is a great privilege to belong, pro hac vice, to this happy band of brothers. I hope that the noble Baroness will not be offended at my including her, but it would be an unhappy band without her.
	I should like to make one essential submission, which is the reason for my intervention: the provisions of the Bill in regard to the granting of legal aid are a constitutional aberration. They are a constitutional aberration for the simple reason that it is common ground, and on the government view, that a wholly judicial decision on a grant or refusal is to be replaced by an administrative function carried out by court staff, not with a right to appeal—that is a misnomer—but with a right to go for judicial review in the exercise of the court's supervisory jurisdiction. If the court says that the decision is beyond the powers of the commission, that does not in itself in any way cancel the decision; it merely sends it back to the commission.
	However, we are here dealing with criminal offences in which the state is bringing proceedings to cause the accused to be punished appropriately for having committed a criminal offence. Obviously, the state has an interest in succeeding in its prosecutions. I should have thought that it was quite wrong, constitutionally, for the state in those circumstances to be in charge of the representation of the accused person. That, being a judicial function, should remain with the judges to decide and should not be handed over to court staff, who will no doubt be directed regarding in what type of case to allow representation and in what not to.
	The court is seized of the facts of every case and has the benefit of submissions by lawyers. It must be better placed to decide what is or is not, to cite the words of the Act,
	"in the interests of justice",
	in any particular case. In particular, it is aware of the level of representation of the Crown and the significance of the case both to the public and the defendant.
	By way of contrast, the commission, an executive agency, has a direct financial interest in the number of grants. It has a budget and a financial target that must be achieved. Inevitably, there is a temptation to use the "interests of justice" test as a mechanism for financial control. There is a distinction under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights between criminal and civil cases, which is at present a proper reflection of the court's control of the grant of representation in criminal matters.
	It is common ground and it has been so stated in the framework document that the right of refusal of legal aid is a judicial function and that, in future, it will be an administrative function. The justification for that is to save money, but that does not in any way explain what the courts are currently doing wrong and in what respect they are exceeding a proper approach to what is
	"in the interests of justice".
	Until that is established, I respectfully submit that the Government are committing a constitutional aberration and I invite them to think again.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in view of the lengthy number of speakers in this debate I intend to make my remarks quite briefly. In any event, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has put the case quite fully. However, I have a number of questions to ask and a number of comments to make on the Bill.
	I accept, as does my noble friend, that there is a serious problem with the expenses of criminal legal aid. However, I have very serious doubts about whether this Bill will achieve any significant reduction. I therefore begin by asking why is it that the Government believe that the Bill will save money, and how much money do they expect it to save? The present regime for granting legal aid in criminal cases was introduced to speed up the proceedings and reduce costs by avoiding the need to apply for legal aid in advance of trials. Do the Government think that we will not, as a result of the Bill, go back to the old system and the problem with delays? If not, why not?
	The Constitutional Affairs Select Committee in the other place recommended that Parliament should be able to see the draft secondary legislation to be introduced under the Bill before it goes through Parliament. So far, that has not happened. It is very important that both Houses should have the opportunity to see what is proposed by the Government in draft secondary legislation before the Bill is enacted, but so far we have seen nothing. Do the Government intend to produce any draft secondary legislation, and, if so, at what stage?
	Continuing on the subject of secondary legislation, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform of your Lordships' House will have to consider carefully some serious issues: whether this is simply a skeleton Bill to a degree that makes it unacceptable, and whether more regulations in any event should need the affirmative resolution procedure. As I read the Bill, the only regulations that will require the affirmative procedure are those made under new paragraph 2A of Schedule 3 to the Access to Justice Act 1999, which are to be made under Section 1(6). But there are others that are equally important; for example, the regulations to be made under new Section 17A of the Access to Justice Act, which provide the prescribed circumstances in which contribution orders can be made.
	The Constitutional Affairs Select Committee also said that a proper appeal mechanism was of the highest importance. But the Bill restricts the existing rights of appeal significantly. Under the new regime, in cases of appeals on the merits, the right of appeal and any right of involvement of the court is reduced to an appeal that must merely satisfy the judicial review standards and does not give the court the opportunity of substituting its own decision for that of the Legal Services Commission. In the case of appeals on eligibility, the law is changed by eliminating appeals altogether and replacing them by an administrative review within the Legal Services Commission. Those seem wholly wrong in principle. A proper appeal to the court is essential. It is also wrong as a matter of practice because it may lead to higher costs and delays as more applications will be made for judicial review in the High Court on account of the impossibility of getting a proper review of those decisions at an earlier stage.
	The introduction of the new regime in the magistrates' court but not simultaneously in the Crown Court may lead to significant numbers of defendants in "either way" cases opting for a Crown Court trial instead of one in the magistrates' court because of their more favourable position as regards legal aid. That will plainly increase the cost. Do the Government recognise and acknowledge that problem?
	It is of great importance that there should be an overriding "interests of justice" test on both merits and eligibility or the Bill will not satisfy Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That test should be left to the courts and "the interests of justice" should not be defined in regulations as is the obvious intention of the Bill.
	The substantial increase in criminal costs, which we all acknowledge, is partly due to an increase in prosecutions and also an increase in the number of offences created by law. When will the Government accept the need for ring-fencing between criminal and civil legal aid so that increases caused by the Government's own legislation do not lead to the cutback of civil legal aid?
	I believe, frankly, that the Bill will do little, if any, good in reducing the costs of criminal defence. We need to look at other ways of reducing the expense of very high cost cases, which take up such an astonishingly high proportion of the total criminal legal aid budget. I strongly recommend that the Government look at the problems mentioned by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, and at cutting the costs of very high cost cases by better case management.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I have barely had time to wipe away the tears shed on hearing the submissions made on behalf of the Criminal Bar by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
	I wish to put a number of questions to the noble Baroness. First of all, I should like to make one or two constitutional observations. Why does the Bill refer to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and not the Lord Chancellor? Schedule 3 to the Access to Justice Act 1999, like the rest of the Act, is cast in terms of responsibilities and powers exercised by the Lord Chancellor. Why do we suddenly see, in a Bill that seeks to substitute a new regime for Schedule 3, this figure of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs loom into view? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spent much of the previous Session prevaricating about whether he should preserve his own office. In the end, the noble and learned Lord decided to do so. Why, immediately after that decision, do we find in legislation a reversion to the Secretary of State?
	I endorse everything that the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Goodhart, said about the importance of seeing the regulations in draft form. The Bill has been in preparation for some time, and the Government must have done serious, indeed comprehensive, thinking about what the regulations should contain. It is highly desirable, therefore, that in Committee, in two weeks' time, we have a clear idea of the main thrust of the regulations, if not a detailed draft with every "i" dotted and "t" crossed.
	I also support what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said about the Crown Court. I look with great wariness on that aspect of the Bill which seeks to translate the magistrates' court regime in some modified form to the Crown Court simply by way of delegated legislation. As the noble Lord rightly observed, your Lordships' House will not have the opportunity to amend such an item of delegated legislation. The noble Lord explained most cogently why the considerations in the Crown Court are different from those in the magistrates' court. I hope that the Government will think very carefully before insisting on that aspect of the Bill.
	On the substance of the Bill, in principle, we, the Opposition, support the idea that some contribution should be made, by those capable of making it, to costs in the magistrates' court. That was the situation before the Access to Justice Act. It was changed, from 2001. And now, after four years' experience, the Government wish to change back again. The temptation is too great not to use the well-known military expression, "order, counter-order, disorder", because that is what it looks to those of us who sit on the other side of the House.
	The system was changed because the Government thought that the combination of cost and bureaucracy and delay was such that the cost savings at the magistrates' court level was very marginal. That was a perfectly understandable conclusion to reach. Clearly something has happened in the last four years to make the Government change their mind.
	Can the Government assure us that the savings that will be made will be real? Have they done a savings estimate? If they have, can they let us know what they think, generally speaking, will be the amount of money that will be saved by these measures? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, we are facing a completely changed regime; but irrespective of the merits of the new regime, judicially, and in the context of Article 6 of the European Convention, is it actually going to save money?
	I hazard that however much money it will save, it will save nothing like the amount of money that high cost cases cost the criminal legal aid system. The figures are quite well known but it is well worth reminding your Lordships what they are. The half dozen most expensive criminal legal aid cases in 2003 amounted to no less than 25 per cent of the total criminal legal aid budget. One per cent of the highest cost cases amount to 40 per cent of the total criminal legal aid budget. Whatever savings are made by these changes in the magistrates' court, they will be dwarfed by these figures.
	Why are the Government not coming to your Lordships' House with proposals to deal with high cost criminal cases? This is the kernel of the real problem of criminal aid; the problem that is having serious implications for the amount of money available for civil legal aid. What proposals do the Government have? Will they come at an early stage to your Lordships with real proposals that will bite, to reduce these high cost cases? As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, it is not simply a matter of trimming defence costs. Much of the problem lies with the way the Crown Prosecution Service deals with these cases. Any proposals that the Government will make will require a very serious look at the whole way in which the Crown Prosecution Service approaches prosecution.
	I turn to one or two points of detail. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has in my respectful submission made some very important criticisms of the new system. The noble and learned Lord rightly says that what will happen under the Bill is a shift from a judicial decision, assessing what is or is not in the interests of justice in relation to representation, to an administrative decision. The administrative decision is rather complicated, because although, in principle, it devolves upon the Legal Services Commission, there is a service level agreement which delegates that decision back to the court administrative staff.
	There is an appeal system but to describe it as such is a misnomer. It is a review system, not an appeal system. The court may review a decision by the Legal Services Commission; but the consequence of that is that the court itself does not make a new decision. It simply refers the faulty decision back to the Legal Services Commission to make a new decision. I wonder whether that is consistent with the Article 6 interest(s) of justice test. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, will address that point head on when she replies; or if she feels unable to do so today, then at a later stage in Committee.
	This move is particularly surprising because last year—or was it the year before—when we dealt with the Government's latest asylum legislation of reducing the two-tier tribunal system to one tier, the Government moved, in the interests of saving money, in the opposite direction. They decided to remove the responsibility for rewarding legal aid from the Legal Services Commission and give it to the court. Perhaps the noble Baroness would be good enough to explain why the interests of saving money were best served by giving the court responsibility in the asylum system; but appear to be best served by giving the Legal Services Commission responsibility when it comes to magistrates' courts. I must confess to feeling somewhat bewildered.
	Although this matter has not been addressed by any earlier speakers, I wonder if the noble Baroness could also tell us something about the proposals for price competition and tendering, which I understand is to be an ingredient of this new system. I know that the Society of Asian Lawyers has expressed some concern about their discriminatory impact and, indeed, possible conflict with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
	The noble Baroness has no doubt talked to the Society and has reached a conclusive view on this matter and I would be most grateful if she could let us know what the Government's reaction is.
	In conclusion I say again, so that there should be no doubt, in principle the Opposition support the idea of contributions but there is much in the detail of this Bill which gives us cause for concern.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords for participating in this short but extremely important debate. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that I am happy to be a part of any band of brothers—or sisters—that includes the noble and learned Lord and am extremely honoured to be thought of as such.
	I am also grateful for the principle about which noble Lords have spoken. There is an issue of great importance here that we are seeking to address; that is, to ensure that we use legal aid appropriately and, in particular circumstances outlined within this Bill, that it is right and proper for those who are convicted and who are able to pay to do so. I am very grateful to those who have expressed those sentiments extremely well.
	The best approach is to try to go through the points that noble Lords have raised and address as many as I can now, with the proviso I always give—that those issues I fail to address will be dealt with in correspondence between now and Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, started by asking why the Secretary of State and not the Lord Chancellor is involved. I have an answer to that question, which is that apparently the Bill has to follow the Access to Justice Act as it stands now, not as it may or will be amended by the Constitutional Reform Act, when it comes into force. Apparently that means that we have to use that particular phraseology.
	The noble Lord looks suitably bemused, but that is the answer I have. If there is anything wrong with that answer I will, of course, write to him but I cannot give him anything more than that.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, that may be the complete answer but, of course, at the time that the Access to Justice Act was passed, there was no such personage as the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. I find it difficult to see how using that expression now could be consistent with the 1999 Act. But there may be a very good answer to that.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised that I, too, found that when I read the answer. However, that is the answer that I have been given. If it is incorrect, I will correct it. I felt that it was better to give a proper answer than not to give an answer at all. I am sure that the answer I have been given is correct.
	Noble Lords have raised the issue of regulations. I do not think that any noble Lord will be surprised to hear that when I was first invited to address this legislation, my first question was whether we have the draft regulations. The main reason why I felt that it was appropriate to bring the Bill forward without those regulations is that we believe—I certainly believe—that within the framework document we have better explained the impact and effect of the Bill than the technical regulations would have done.
	My speaking note, which I shall read out in order to invite your Lordships to chuckle with me, states that the nature of the regulations would be incomprehensible by any but the most erudite legal minds. I read that because, of course, in your Lordships' House we have the most erudite legal minds. I am very mindful of that but I was very clear that, in the generality of the framework document, we explain extremely well what the regulations will do.
	It is our plan to produce regulations. They will not be available until after the Summer Recess on 10 October. I have already given the commitment to noble Lords to whom I managed to speak earlier that, in our deliberations in Committee and at Report, I will be crystal clear on what the regulations contain. I hope that noble Lords will feel comfortable that when the regulations come forward, they will do so on that basis. I am also very happy to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Given that the timescale is towards the end of the Summer Recess, would it be possible to programme the Bill so that Third Reading in your Lordships' House does not occur until after the summer Recess?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, if only I were capable of programming any Bills in your Lordships' House. I will certainly bear that in mind in my discussions. I am very clear that noble Lords should not be under the impression that a lack of the regulations before your Lordships' House in any way is detrimental to your Lordships' ability to understand precisely the purpose of the Bill and how we shall enact it. It is very important that we have the final consultations that need to take place. The regulations will come forward by affirmative regulation. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said about other aspects of the regulations that might be by the negative procedure. I am very happy to discuss that whole issue in Committee or before in order to give clarity and comfort about the way that we are taking this forward.
	In summary, I am clear that we have given your Lordships—certainly for those of us with less than erudite legal minds—a greater explanation of what we seek to do. We will of course make sure that your Lordships have a full debate on the regulations as they come forward.
	A number of concerns have been raised by noble Lords on the Crown Court scheme, not least by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Kingsland, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to ensure that we address this issue properly. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out the question of perverse incentive for those who have the option of going into either court and whether that would be an issue. We are allied to that question. In a sense, we have begun to think about how we might address that.
	I am very clear that we need to ensure that the magistrates' scheme is given an opportunity to be in place and to work before we move on to the Crown Court scheme. However, I would argue and will continue to argue throughout the passage of the Bill that in order to ensure that we are able to move forward on the Crown Court scheme, the best way of approaching it is to allow for regulations within the Bill. We recognise that noble Lords will seek assurances, and will wish to know in greater detail how we would approach it and the process and procedure for bringing it forward, not only to your Lordships' House but also to those who would be affected in any way. I undertake to do that.
	But I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, that we need to have a separate Bill. We need to be sure that we are clear about what we propose to do. I have already indicated to your Lordships that it would not be appropriate simply to transfer the proposed scheme for the magistrates' court to the Crown Court, for reasons that the legal minds here present will understand far better than I do.
	The noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, in a sense, said, "Well, you have had this policy and this is a bit of a U-turn". Again, I want to be clear. At least at one level, this is a reversal of policy. Coming at this from a relatively new perspective and looking back on the decisions that were taken during the Access to Justice Act, the decisions taken were right in those circumstances. But it is important that we review the decisions to see whether they are still applicable.
	The scheme that we have devised removes the slow and bureaucratic process that existed at that time. It recognises the circumstances that have changed since then, not least the number of applications for legal aid that could not have been known at that time from those who were then not applying for it. We have devised a system that will make sense. I make no apologies if that change has been made.
	The noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Kingsland, also asked whether this would be a cost-saving measure. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked the question, which I know has been around and about, about ring-fencing. I think that it was also raised in the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee. I am not a huge believer in ring-fencing because it does not give flexibility. It is necessary on occasion to ring-fence money. I do not think that we would want to move in that direction. We would want to make sure that the money is available in the pot.
	As I said in my opening remarks, I am very clear that we are mindful of the way in which money can be distorted by having to be used in a particular direction. Perhaps some of the work that we would like to do for the most vulnerable in our society is not able to be done in the way in which we would currently like. So we will be very mindful of that in looking at how money is spent.
	However, I should like to give a couple of figures in order to be clear about what we anticipate the scheme to do. We expect that the set-up costs for the transfer of the grant and means test is likely to be about £5 million. The ongoing annual costs are likely to be between £5 million and £9 million per year. We have calculated that the additional costs of assessing means will be offset by the reduced number of applications. On the basis of information that we have so far, we anticipate a reduction of between 10 and 20 per cent reduction in the volume of applications, which means that the volume will fall from about 650,000 to somewhere in the region of 530,000 to 570,000 applications. It will be cost neutral in terms of the administrative costs. Therefore, the estimated savings on that basis are £35 million, which is a substantial amount of money. I hope that it will be welcomed by noble Lords as money that can be used more effectively within the system.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in particular are concerned about interests of justice, the linking of the two tests into one and the role of the Legal Services Commission. I am very clear that there are no issues around Article 6. As noble Lords will know, the LSC, which is separate from the DCA as a non-departmental public body, already decides on Article 6 grounds, for example, in mental health tribunals. There is no question that it is an independent body which would work extremely well.
	As I have indicated, the service level agreement transfers back to court staff who currently do that work the responsibility for doing the work as of now. I would argue that the review by the court or the review appeal—whichever words most aptly fit the description in your Lordships' view—allows the court to consider how the facts match the Widgery criteria. Although those criteria are relatively new to me as a non-lawyer, I find them extremely straightforward to understand.
	Our ambition is very clear. The staff currently doing this, who do an extremely good job, will continue to do it. There would be a basis on which appeal could be made. The Legal Services Commission will take very seriously anything that the courts would have to say. Therefore, this would be done in a suitable way that is very mindful of our obligations under Article 6. So, although I am sure we will debate this at length, I do not accept that there is any real concern about how this would operate, or that the staff, who currently do it exceptionally well, would continue to do so.
	Noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised the question of very high cost cases. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who I know is also exercised by this, wanted to know what we were doing about them. From the work we have already done on the individual case contracts, we have achieved savings of some £26.5 million in 2003–04. The savings for the current year are anticipated to be higher than that. We anticipate £35 million for this scheme, which will contribute significantly to the work we are doing.
	I wanted to say a bit more about what is happening with very high cost cases. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, told me he wanted to raise the subject. Noble Lords will know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has set up a review to consider the individual case contract scheme. It reported in May and, because of the negotiations with the professions, changes have been made to the scheme to ensure that it works more effectively. We are discussing with the Bar and other stakeholders what further might be done.
	All parties agree in principle that existing arrangements for paying "cracks and guilties" ex post facto need to be changed, and general agreement has been reached on the replacement of the architecture of the new "cracks and guilties" scheme. Draft regulations are being shared with the professions at the moment.
	There is a final area still to be discussed, which is the proposal that very high cost case solicitor advocates should be paid the same preparation rates as counsel, and the Law Society needs time to consider this proposal. No decision has yet been reached, but we are continuing to consider the issues raised by very high cost cases to ensure that suitable systems are in place.
	The question of competition was raised. Consultation is under way, although I do not have details to give your Lordships at the moment. I will reply properly to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on that, and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
	This Bill is about tackling what has been seen as a much criticised and well recognised flaw in the legal aid system. It is a common-sense measure that fits well with the process of modernisation of the criminal justice system. It is, in short, a return to the founding principles of legal aid. I thank your Lordships for your contributions to this debate, and invite you to discuss all these issues between now and Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will she clarify one point, either today or in correspondence? How much of the figure she mentioned of £35 million in savings is due to, on the one hand, the prospect of getting contributions in the Crown Court from people who have been granted legal aid, and, on the other, the refusal of legal aid to people who would have qualified for it under the present system?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I will send the noble Lord a note rather than read it out, because it is technical. I will ensure that there is a copy of it in the Library, and that noble Lords who have spoken will get the detail of that. The noble Lord raises an important point. It is of enormous importance to me that noble Lords see the benefits of this scheme in order to be able to support it fully.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Remand in Custody (Effect of Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences of Imprisonment) Rules 2005

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: rose to move, That the draft rules laid before the House on 28 February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2004–05].

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the purpose of these rules is to support the new remand provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which were brought into effect on 4 April 2005. The rules will maintain the principle that remand time served at the time as a sentence of imprisonment does not count towards time served. They also maintain the principle that a day of shared remand time should only count once towards time served. These principles have served us well over the years, and it is in the interests of justice that they should continue.
	I know the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is concerned about these issues, so it may be convenient if I give a little more detail at this stage than I would otherwise have done.
	Sections 240 to 243 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 created new arrangements for crediting remand time towards sentence. The main change is that the court, not the Prison Service, will be responsible for determining the period of remand time that will count towards the sentence. The court will have discretion if it considers it just in all the circumstances not to count some or all days spent on remand towards sentence. Section 240 (4) (a) gives the Secretary of State power to make rules that will prevent the court from making a direction in respect of certain days in certain circumstances.
	The arrangement set out in Sections 240 to 243 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 will apply to offences committed on or after 4 April 2005. In these cases the court will be required to make a direction in relation to remand time, unless prevented from doing so by these rules, or because it does not consider it just to do so. Offences that were committed before 4 April 2005 will be dealt with under the old procedures governed by Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, regardless of when they are sentenced.
	The first rule prevents the court from making a direction in relation to days spent on remand where the offender was also serving a sentence of imprisonment for another offence. This preserves the position that existed prior to implementation of provisions of the 2003 Act. Its purpose is to stop a prisoner benefiting from a discount of remand time when he would have been in prison anyway.
	The second rule prevents the court from making a direction that would have the effect of counting the same remand day twice. This could happen if consecutive sentences were given for an old and a new offence and there was shared remand time. The rules as drafted would prevent the court from counting remand time in relation to days that would already fall to be counted under Section 67 of the 1967 Act. Again, the purpose is to stop a prisoner from benefiting from a technicality.
	The rules maintain the principle that remand time served at the same time as a sentence of imprisonment does not count towards time served; and also that a day of shared remand time should count only once towards time served. While the court is able to deliver the same effect simply through using its discretion, it is desirable to put these matters beyond doubt, as any decisions by the court to allow time in these circumstances would, perhaps inadvertently, undermine public confidence in the provisions.
	As I said at the beginning, the rules maintain the principle that remand time served at the same time as a sentence of imprisonment does not count towards time served. We are just preserving the position in a way I think we all recognise. I hope that with that full explanation I have pre-empted some of the questions that might otherwise have been asked. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 28 February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 2004–05].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for explaining in some detail how this order works and how it relies on the principle that if a person is already in custody on another offence, that should not allow the time to be deducted from the new sentence which is to be imposed.
	As I understand it, from the time that Section 240 came into effect until the making of this order, the courts would either have been able to direct that the time spent on remand should be deducted from the sentence, while retaining the power to add those days to the sentence ultimately imposed, or they could have relied on Section 240(4)(b), stating in open court as required by subsection (6)(b) that they were of the opinion that no such order should be made because the offender was already in prison for some other offence for the period of remand.
	The only difficulty they might have had would be in cases where the remand extended beyond the period of the sentence, where the number of days the offender remained in custody after the expiry of the other sentence would still need to be deducted from the sentence now being passed. Without these rules, the courts had only two options. Either they could direct that the whole time spent on remand in custody should be counted against the sentence under the powers in subsection (3), or they could refrain from giving a direction under the powers in subsection (4)(b). In the case where the offender was in prison serving another sentence for only part of the time that he was remanded in custody, the only option would be to give directions under subsection (3), remitting the whole of the time spent on remand, and to add the number of days that the offender was serving the previous sentence on to the new sentence.
	I have already mentioned in passing another point to the noble Baroness, although we did not have time to finish our conversation. The order deals with cases where the accused is remanded in custody when he is already serving a sentence of imprisonment for another offence, but not when he is remanded in custody on another charge at the point at which the court has consider his disposal on the new offence, or when he is detained in connection with other matters. I presume that that in the main is for the purposes of immigration control.
	In fact, Section 240(2) states explicitly that it is immaterial "for that purpose", which I take to mean for the purpose of the whole of Section 240, whether the offender has already been remanded in custody in connection with other offences. I am not too worried about this because it means that the offender will have those days on which he is concurrently remanded in custody for two completely separate offences knocked off the end of both sentences. According to the bar chart I drew for the noble Baroness just before we came into the Chamber, the days would have to be taken off the first sentence if he was being held in custody on remand concurrently on the two separate charges. As I say, it seems that that period would be knocked off the end of both sentences. However, I am not sure whether that is the intention of the order because it is not entirely logical to take that period off the end of both sentences, although I hope that we are not talking about a set of circumstances that arises very frequently.
	Unfortunately, the order does not affect the extent of remands in custody, under which 58,700 people were imprisoned awaiting trial in 2003, even though half of them subsequently received a non-custodial sentence and 22 per cent were acquitted. According to the Prison Reform Trust, the average length of time spent behind bars on remand was 49 days for men and 37 for women, but some 250 individuals were held for over a year.
	I hope that I am not out of order in saying this, as so frequently I am, but we should look at the experience of Scotland where a maximum period is set for a person to be held on remand. The average length of time is 24 days, less than half that in England and Wales. Scotland also has a procedure for tagging those accused of serious offences and making them subject to a movement restriction condition. Are not these matters on which the Home Office could learn from the Scottish experience? If it has worked there, we might be able to amend our own law accordingly.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. At this stage I shall deal with his concerns as simply as possible and then write to him in detail, particularly if he would like to explore with me further the examples that we have discussed briefly so that the position can be clarified.
	Essentially, the principle set out in the rules is that a day of shared remand time shall be counted only once. The effect of being sentenced for two offences committed at different times may be different if the sentences are consecutive or concurrent. In the example cited by the noble Lord it would not necessarily count in relation to both. It might count in relation to one dependent on concurrence, or consecutively. However, I can better deal with the detail of the point in written form because of the complexities of trying to track it through.
	On the Act itself, noble Lords will know that guidance was issued to courts in April via a Home Office circular. Therefore the courts have already been adopting the principles set out in these rules and their implementation merely formalises in statute what is current practice.
	I know that the noble Lord has commented on the maximum time spent on remand. However, although it is not set out formally in the rules, tagging can take place in relation to an adult offender, if the court believes that course as regards bail to be appropriate. There are many issues in this area that noble Lords are anxious to debate and I am sure that we will find time to do so, but perhaps not on this order. However, I am again happy to write to the noble Lord on this point.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before we begin on the Unstarred Question, perhaps I may point out that only one minute can be allowed to speak in the gap. If noble Lords overrun their time, unfortunately the Minister will be unable to reply.

Asian Tsunami: Emergency Relief

Lord Naseby: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the progress of reconstruction following the emergency relief given in response to the Asian tsunami.
	My Lords, given that I shall not be more than 11 minutes, I too make a plea to my colleagues to keep to their time so that we can hear from the Minister. To a degree I know all the five affected countries in south and south-east Asia. I have visited them all and I have had the privilege of working in three. Post-tsunami, I visited Sri Lanka and the Maldives, but this debate is not about emergency relief; rather, it concerns the next stage, that of reconstruction.
	I chair both the Maldives and the Sri Lanka All-Party Groups and I want to see both countries back on their feet as quickly as possible. I do not take any political side in the debate on the respective countries and I have absolutely nil in the way of commercial interests in either or any of them.
	Perhaps I may begin with the position in the Maldives. Although the Maldives is the smallest country, in relative terms it was in fact the hardest hit of the whole lot. It was affected both economically and in terms of land mass. The disaster relief exercise went well, having been well organised by the Maldivian Government, and there was a good response from both the aid agencies and the world in general. Nevertheless, out of a population of 300,000, one third—some 100,000—people were affected. While it is true that the dead numbered only 83, some 12,000 were made homeless, nine islands have disappeared altogether and are no longer a part of the Maldives as a country, and only nine out of the 200 inhabited islands escaped damage altogether.
	The damage hit the Maldivian economy extremely seriously. The biggest loss was that of tourism because understandably tourists have decided not to go to the Maldives, while the direct damage costs are estimated at over $100 million. Some 25 per cent of the 87 tourist hotels were badly damaged, and the United Nations Development Programme estimates that the tsunami has set back development by 20 years. Total damage renewal costs have been estimated at $470 million, which represents 62 per cent of the GDP of the entire country.
	Today tourism is still down by 40 per cent, despite the fact that only six resorts have not yet reopened. Some 81 are now open for business. In my judgment, the Maldivian Government are efficient and well organised. I was interested to read a letter sent recently by our own British Red Cross to the government complimenting them on their arrangements for its involvement, and I should like to place on the record my appreciation of what the British Red Cross has done in the Maldives.
	The restraining factor in the Maldives is money. They have estimated their needs, which have been verified by the United Nations, at $470 million. As of last Friday the international pledges stood at $150 million: a shortfall of $320 million. That is a huge shortfall. It was slightly disingenuous of the Leader of the House in answer to my Question last week to suggest that the Maldives was no longer a poor developing country. That might have been true pre-tsunami, but it is certainly not true post-tsunami. Whereas previously it had 5 per cent growth, the growth rate this year is estimated at best to be 1 per cent.
	So I am asking Her Majesty's Government to take a lead individually and in terms of our presidency of the European Union. In contrast to the UN, the World Bank and our own DfID, the EU's response was disappointing, to put it mildly. As a major member of the Commonwealth I would hope that we could take a lead in garnering the support of the Commonwealth. As the Prime Minister seems to be involved in most world matters, maybe we could also get cracking with the UN and the World Bank.
	But this is not just a short-term disaster. For the Maldives, the shortfall of needed resources runs the risk of being at best a medium-term disaster. We have special responsibility; after all, it was a British protectorate until 1965. Admittedly, we made an early pledge of £50 million, which is welcome. But as it moves from least-developed country to developing country status that aspect needs to be reviewed; otherwise its exports will be adversely affected.
	I would like to say a big thank you to certain members of the UK High Commission for the Maldives, particularly Mr Steve Ainsworth, and to the Royal Navy, the British Red Cross and Oxfam.
	I turn to Sri Lanka, which I know extremely well. In one sense it has a greater problem and in another sense not so great. There were 40,000 dead, 1 million homeless, massive disruption and 23,000 fishing boats destroyed. Yet there was no death or starvation subsequent to the tsunami, no law and order riots. Camps were set up immediately, of which I visited a number: 750 camps were set up, now reduced to 102. The railway line reopened in six weeks—somewhat quicker than at Hatfield. Rehousing commenced and temporary housing is now available for 200,000, but permanent housing is still needed.
	There was an incredible response from small British charities. I mention two in particular: Adopt Sri Lanka, run by Geoffrey Dobbs, who lives in the outskirts of Galle; and Rebuilding Sri Lanka, run by Alison Nagle, who was initially just a tourist. Both those organisations, but Adopt Sri Lanka in particular, got cracking almost within 12 hours of the tsunami in terms of providing food, livelihoods, storing fishing boat engines, setting up workshops to restore fishing boats and getting the schools reopened. It was a wonderful response.
	There was a very good response from the United States in bringing in heavy equipment to clear the ground. I would also like to pay tribute to the government agents, who do a thankless job in Sri Lanka. I have met a great many over the years; they are dedicated public officials. That is the good side.
	Unfortunately there is a bad side. Unlike 9/11 and the east coast floods in 1953, when everyone pulled together, sadly in Sri Lanka that is not the situation. There is argy-bargy between the political parties: the PA—the government grouping—the UNP, the JVP and, overlying everything, the LTTE. That is a huge hindrance. Ball-bearings are being sent in relief containers, not to be put into wheels but for suicide bombs—that is what ball-bearings are for. It is a great problem and a great tragedy and the world has to put some pressure on all those parties to achieve peace in that country.
	There is a lack of working equipment on the ground. I am tired of seeing people trying to rescue things or do things with picks, shovels and wheelbarrows. We have to move forward and something has to happen there.
	There is a great problem of the 100 metres, the 150 metres or the 0 metres. I make a plea to the President, whom I know well, to make a clear world announcement on that policy, in which there has to be some flexibility. If one is a fisherman, one does not want to be 150 metres away; one wants to be near the beach.
	I mentioned in passing the east coast to remind us all that 307 people were killed in this country, which led to the erection of the Thames Barrier; 32,000 people were evacuated and no one was properly rehoused until a year later. We are only coming up to six months after the tsunami, so frankly even we were not that good at it.
	My conclusions are that the emergency side went well, on which I congratulate everyone. But as with the conclusion for the east coast flooding, we need a warning system. We need to recognise that we are in a technical world. We need capital equipment, bulldozers and JCB diggers on-site, so why does the UK not consider an agreement with JC Bamford, immediately when there is a crisis, to draw off a dozen or so JCBs to be flown or shipped to wherever the problem is?
	We need technical people on standby. How good to see the Germans having their desalination teams on-site within 36 hours of the disaster. We need electricians—they went in in the end, but it took almost a couple of weeks. They should be on call. We need to deliver stuff. We are good at aircraft, but we have forgotten that landing craft are needed for coastal disasters. We need landing craft positioned around the world. How well the Singaporeans did in Ache. They were the only people who had landing craft: they were there within 48 hours.
	I conclude by saying that after one year we as politicians will need to review what has happened. We as politicians need to set the pace and to show that we have responded to what has been one of the world's greatest disasters.

Lord Giddens: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for initiating this debate on such an important subject. It is a shame that there are so few noble Lords here in the Chamber to debate it. I venture that if this debate had been about Africa the Chamber would be much more full. I remind noble Lords—and perhaps the Minister—that there are more very poor people in east Asia than in sub-Saharan Africa. Of course concentration on Africa is important—and vital, given the coming up of the G8 conference—but we must remember to focus our attention at a more global level.
	The tsunami in the Indian Ocean was, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, one of the worst natural disasters in modern times. An estimated 270,000 people were killed in the disaster; many more were injured; even more lost their sources of livelihood or their homes; there was massive damage to infrastructure.
	When it happened the world's attention was focused on the tsunami, not just because of its devastating nature but also because it was, as it were, an expression of globalisation. The events interacted with the global tourist industry. We do not completely know how many people from what countries died in the tsunami, but it is estimated that people from 70 countries died there.
	The response of the world was very generous. As has been mentioned, in this country there was an enormous out-flowing of generosity at that point and the Government made a very quick response. But there plainly are problems of reconstruction, some of which have been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. I have seen many different estimates of the shortfall of money required. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, mentioned various areas of shortfall but, overall, all the calculations that I have seen—including a very recent one by the Asian Development Bank—put the figure for shortfall at more than $4 billion, a very significant sum.
	I remind the Minister that there is a big difference between aid which is pledged and aid which is delivered. The world does not have a good record on the delivery of pledges. In 2000, there was an earthquake in the Iranian city of Bam in which some 3,000 people were killed. A sum of $1.1 billion was pledged from the world community for reconstruction, but so far only 1.5 per cent of that aid has been delivered. We have to ensure that this does not happen in the case of the tsunami disaster.
	Devastating though it was, we cannot understand the process of reconstruction and the implications of the tsunami without placing it in a much broader context. The 21st century is likely to be marked by larger disasters and larger catastrophes than the world has ever seen before. I should like to offer—if the House will forgive my quasi-academic manner—three reasons for this.
	First, we live in a world of intensifying globalisation, which is the characteristic feature of our epoch. What does globalisation mean? It means increasing interdependence. It means an increasing economic interdependence, political interdependence and cultural interdependence of world society. As we know, the expansion of globalisation brings many benefits. Economic globalisation is the condition of effective economic development in poorer countries, not a barrier to it.
	But globalisation—meaning interdependence—also has a massive downside. There are new risks that we must face. Let us consider, for example, world financial markets, which are far more integrated than they ever were before. We know that such markets can produce shocks. It is possible that there could be a meltdown in global financial markets. Every country in the world today would, of course, be affected if that should happen.
	Secondly, in the case of purely natural disasters such as the tsunami, there is good reason to suppose that the consequences of such natural disasters are much greater than they used to be because they intersect with modernisation and economic development. For example, we have erratic urbanisation, where thousands—sometimes hundreds of thousands—of people live on the edges of ravines, on the top of mountains, in volcanic areas and near flood plains. We have to take on board very seriously this intersection between global disaster and development. The tsunami is a big example of it but we have to generalise it far more.
	The third reason is that the world must deal with a new range of not quite natural disasters but disasters stemming from human technological intervention in nature. For many hundreds of years people worried primarily about what nature can do to us. Not long ago, for good reason, we started worrying more about what we have done to nature. And what we have done to nature has created imponderable risks for us, which, again, intersect with purely natural risks. Yesterday, there was a large-scale flood in China in which 87 people died. It was apparently caused by excessive rainfall. We just do not know how far such episodes are natural or not, but we can be quite sure that they will expand if we do not take systematic preventative action.
	The UNDP report on world disaster contains a very interesting analysis. It considered disasters over the past 20 or so years, from 1980 to 2000, and found that 75 per cent of the world's population live in areas which have experienced at least one serious natural disaster over the past 20 years, whether a tropical cyclone, earthquake, large-scale drought or large-scale flooding. According to the report, 1.5 million people died in natural disasters over this period. Across the planet, that is probably more people than died in wars over that 20-year period.
	We know also that catastrophe and disaster affect developing societies disproportionately. Eleven per cent of the population live in the various very poorest countries of the world, as designated by the World Bank. That 11 per cent of the population experienced no less than 53 per cent of overall deaths from catastrophes over that 20-year period.
	We are only just starting to recognise how connected disaster and catastrophe are with economic development. We tend to think of economic development as a kind of long-term flowing process and disaster and catastrophe as coming from out of the side field, as coming from nowhere. But it is not like that. There is a systematic connection between disaster, catastrophe and development.
	This systematic connection can very much affect, for example, the millennium development goals. Part of the reason for that is that catastrophe in poorer countries is less easily preventable and its immediate consequences tend to be much more severe and much more long-term than they are in developed countries. We therefore need to forge much closer connections between economic development policy and disaster management than we have done previously.
	If time allows I shall conclude by making three or four policy observations which I should like the Government to consider at least—or for the Minister to say that she will take them seriously.
	First, we have to integrate disaster management and risk assessment with economic development programmes in a direct way. We have to integrate these issues and not just treat disaster management as an add-on. That means building risk assessment into development programmes; it means creating knowledgeability among local populations; and it means looking at vulnerability in different parts of the world and assessing its potential implications for economic and other kinds of development. It is crucial to have a much greater integration of these issues than we have had.
	Secondly, it has become a convention of the economic development literature that you cannot develop from top down; you have to develop from bottom up and empower local communities. The same is true of disaster reduction and management. We have to empower local communities to anticipate disasters and to have the means and resources to deal with them. That involves very much the same kind of issues as apply in overall economic development. For instance, the role of women needs to be considered. We know that the role of women is central to economic development bottom up, but it is also very important in disaster management because of the centrality of women in the family and in the larger community. We must therefore have community development relevant to disaster assessment.
	Thirdly, we need much more effective forms of technical assessment, especially of natural and not-so natural disasters. As I understand it, the Indian Government have committed themselves to developing an early warning system for tsunamis in the Indian Ocean within a period of two years. It remains to be seen, of course, whether that will actually eventuate. They have also promised that this will be integrated with wider world management systems for disasters. We need something more systematic. We need to deal with natural and not so natural disasters. The proposal to create a global observation system that would integrate data from climate, data from the ocean, and data from echo systems as a kind of world informational system for disaster anticipation and management is an important development.
	Finally, we must consider multiple risks, because each of the three types of risk that I mentioned interact with one another; and that particularly affects poor countries. Natural disasters can accentuate economic shocks and the disintegration of local communities and can affect education and policy programmes. Some disasters we cannot control, and sometimes nature reminds us of its power in relation to human capacity. We can always control and try to regulate the consequences of disasters. I ask the Minister to assure me that we will look for a world in which that is done not only in the rich countries but in the poor ones.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for providing us with this opportunity. The aid community lost one of its leading lights in the tsunami. He was Robin Needham, country director of CARE International in Nepal, who was on holiday with his family in Thailand. Having considerable experience of emergencies, he had already moved his wife and family to safer areas when he was swept away. I worked with him during the 1980s, when he was setting up the CARE office in London. He was a good friend and an excellent example of the dedication and love of humanity that characterises the staff of all our NGOs.
	This is the second time in a few weeks that I have paid tribute to someone from CARE who died in the act of helping others. The memory of Margaret Hassan in Iraq is still fresh in our minds. The release of Clementina Cantoni, also from CARE, last Thursday in Kabul was a great relief, but it was another example of the callous targeting of an aid worker who in her case was serving Afghan widows and their children. Those tragedies remind us of the remarkable sacrifices made daily by our volunteers literally on the battlefield. We often, rightly, in this House recognise the work of our armed services, but we do not pay enough attention to the selfless commitment of our hundreds of unarmed aid workers who are serving overseas. The world is not a safer place than it was, nor than we expected it to be a generation ago; quite the contrary. Increasingly the lives of aid workers, both local and international, are being lost in Iraq, Afghanistan and in emergencies such as the Asian tsunami. Embassies are good at following up families once there has been a disaster, but the Government have no statistics on the number of Britons serving overseas in our NGOs. As far as I know, there are no current plans to provide greater security for them. That is a subject to which I hope we can return.
	It is said in India that when the cyclones come to the coast, tall buildings rise in the cities. I first heard that in Hyderabad after the Andhra Pradesh cyclone of 1977, and I was reminded of it when I was there again a few weeks ago. Thirty years ago, while businesses seemed to thrive on foreign aid, the affected families living along the coast were still waiting to be rehoused or compensated months or even years after the cyclone. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has alluded already to reconstruction. The tsunami victims in Sri Lanka and the other countries affected now echo the same complaint. Nearly six months after the tsunami, the displaced continue to live in temporary shelters, with no information from the various governments regarding their permanent shelter in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, there are about 1 million displaced in Sri Lanka alone.
	The noble Lord mentioned the buffer zones proposed by all the governments. India has proposed 500 metres, Sri Lanka between 100 metres and 200 metres, Indonesia as much as 1 kilometre, in which those displaced will not be allowed to rebuild. Not only have the displaced not been consulted on whether they would like to rebuild their original home or whether they are happy to move to an alternative location, in most cases they have not even been told what the policy is. They have had little access to coherent information produced by their government on the policy to be implemented. Where respective governments have issued statements, they have not provided further information giving a timescale or at least a plan for relocation.
	Once again, it is a story of the poor being made victims all over again. People in all those countries remain in temporary shelters with no idea what will happen to them in the immediate future. With the onset of the monsoon, the rains are already worsening the conditions in those shelters. In the Andaman and Nicobar islands, which are some of the hardest-hit areas, like the Maldives, the monsoon is already in full swing and no reconstruction will be possible until September. Have our Government taken up that issue with the respective governments? Does the Minister agree that those delays are the major obstacle to the proper and urgent allocation of funding that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has asked for?
	It is not just a problem of consultation but of wrong policies. Some of the coasts are densely populated, and it is almost impossible in areas of Tamil Nadu, for instance, to find suitable land for relocation. There is also the considerable problem of title deeds. How will the poorest obtain rights to new land? What will happen to the sites of their former homes?
	I hear through Christian Aid's partners in south India that, at the district level local administration is becoming a nightmare. Finding suitable land is only part of the problem, as taking the risk of altering powers conferred in land purchases is all too daunting for most revenue officials. I am told that virtually all district collectors in Tamil Nadu are informally pushing for the communities to seek the in situ option despite the official policy of promoting relocation. That is a serious dilemma for the aid agencies involved, too. While they have to look sympathetically at proposals for relocation, for obvious reasons they are unwilling to side with the authorities. It seems highly unlikely that the Indian government will be able to enforce relocation in cases where people insist on remaining on or near the beach where they have always lived. There is also the issue of continued access to the sea for fishermen who have been relocated. New tourist ventures and small businesses already threaten to take over those sites, and new regulations are unlikely to resist such economic pressures.
	Another concern of the NGOs is that while the fishing communities bore the brunt of the tsunami, many other communities suffered directly or indirectly, including the Dalits, or the scheduled castes, in India. As I discovered during my visit, they were the ones who also had to remove the dead and clear up the mess, who suffer daily discrimination in their lives and who are often left out of the loop of rehabilitation. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how the various donor governments are handling those issues. Will the Indian and Sri Lankan Governments which, after all, have their major political concerns, listen to the anxieties expressed by NGOs? How can DfID, which I know supports greater consultation in theory, get involved without interfering in the proposed legislation? Do the Government accept that it is not surprising that relief funds cannot be spent in a hurry?
	Meanwhile, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, mentioned, the voluntary organisations are doing marvellous work. A quick search of Christian Aid and Save the Children projects shows how much is going on at a local level. Christian Aid lists the provision of food and drinking water, medical aid, temporary shelter, household items and trauma counselling to affected communities, which lead to longer-term projects such as the construction of permanent housing, assisting people back into work, preparing for future disasters, and helping the most vulnerable. Save the Children, among many of its projects in the region, is active in child protection and psycho-social support for orphaned children in the Andaman and Nicobar islands. CARE is also a vital player. No doubt the Minister will confirm that Her Majesty's Government are supporting many of those initiatives.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, the Asian tsunami on 26 December was a terrible tragedy. As other noble Lords have reminded us, there are huge effects on the economies, as well as the life and limb. The economies of all countries of the world were affected, as the insurance industry is well aware—and, indeed, that industry can also help. I should like to speak about what could be done further by using science and engineering to reduce the impact of such events and to help the countries to ensure that, if such events recur, they will be better protected.
	I declare an interest as a member of the UK Advisory Committee for Natural Disaster Reduction. I am also chair of an NGO called ACOPS. As director of the Institute of Mathematics at University College and the Institution of Civil Engineers, we had a meeting with experts from Sri Lanka, Europe and the USA. I have placed a report of that in the Library for those of you who like studying waves and other complex problems.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, has reminded us, this natural disaster had much in common with other natural disasters, in that many of the deaths were preventable and happened in greater numbers in the least developed countries. More developed countries have demonstrated time and again that through the use of science and technology, planning and resources, many of the effects of natural disasters can be mitigated. Progress is being made through international collaboration, through the United Nations system, at which I was pleased to represent the UK with the World Meteorological Organisation. Through such collaboration, many developing countries have also learned the lessons that technology, planning and emergency response can be applied, often at modest cost. For example, a centre of coastal environment set up in Kenya, partly through the help of our NGO in the UK, provided warnings in that country. When the tsunami reached Kenya, which was about six hours later than it reached Sri Lanka, warnings had been given and there was some reduction in the amount of damage.
	It is important to recall that each type of natural disaster has its own features, but there are broad types of response. Whereas in the UK we have different types of response for every type of disaster, in Japan, for example, there is one centre where all the information and decisions are taken. India also has more of a unified response. Nevertheless, the UK with its expertise and its governmental departments can be involved; I refer not only to DfID, but to many specialised departments that can provide help. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, made some further suggestions.
	The noble Lord also reminded us that many other countries have been very effective at every level, and the United Nations system has been helpful in co-ordinating that. However, it is important to recognise that current methods need to be improved and that there are new kinds of technology that we need to make use of—for example, the satellites and computer systems that are widely available around the world, which need to be applied to provide detailed warnings. In Japan, for example, one has detailed models for how a tsunami will affect every single bay and port area. Such models are very important for local responses.
	At this point, it is important to realise that the UK Government, following the disaster, set up their own committee to deal with the reduction of natural disasters. That committee reported last week—as always, to the press and not to Parliament; that is a bit of a new Labour thing, is it not? But its conclusions were important. One of them was that the UK could contribute, but that the UN system is very important to co-ordinate.
	One of the important points of the special meeting that we had was to recognise that the cause of tsunamis comes about from earth movement. It is not only the earth movement in itself that causes tsunamis, but it triggers slides—large shifts of sediment—down the sloping sea bottom, which often causes a depression of the sea surface, followed by an elevation. A speaker from Sri Lanka blamed Hollywood for the widespread death and destruction, because Hollywood has always presented a tsunami as a huge wave. The important point about that particular event was that there was a depression—so everybody went down to the beach to have a look and then, following the depression, the huge wave came. So perhaps we can blame Hollywood a little. But that only shows that it is extremely important to explain to people what can happen. Indeed, the communities that were saved there were saved by people who had experienced tsunamis in other parts of the Pacific basin.
	The other important point, which I have already mentioned, is that the combination of satellites, computers and telecommunications now provide a method for effective warnings. They have been very effective for tropical cyclones around the world, and developing countries make use of them just as much as developed countries. They have been used for tsunamis in the Pacific. The new system that needs to be developed is a tsunami system for the Indian Ocean. That would be a great step forward. But as I saw for myself while visiting India in March, many organisations there are requesting collaboration and assistance from the UK and Europe to make best use of the satellite systems that are available.
	The other very important point is the question of buildings. Those which were put up of a commercial type, such as hotels built to modern standards, survived the tsunami; other buildings did not. The Institution of Civil Engineers made a plea to its own members, and got to work within a day or two in some of the ports in the Indian Ocean area—but we need to provide that kind of training and expertise. Training is the most important way in which the science and technology community can contribute, but it needs some government help for that.

Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has given us some very interesting information. As the House knows, he speaks with great knowledge of this subject.
	I join with other noble Lords in expressing gratitude to my noble friend Lord Naseby for enabling us to have this short debate. In a memorable speech, he was extremely constructive in his observations. I shall be a little more critical than him, and I am encouraged in my criticisms by an article that appeared in prime position in the Daily Telegraph just over two weeks ago, on 28 May. I shall quote a couple of brief commentaries from Peter Foster's report from Colombo, in Sri Lanka. The article states:
	"Despite almost unlimited resources—the relief fund stands at more than £1.75 billion for Sri Lanka alone—victims are cooped up in camps waiting for news of progress that never seems to come".
	Later on, the article quotes the comments of the Sri Lankan-born director of the Irish Sri Lanka Trust Fund, who said:
	"This hard-earned money was raised by schoolchildren and old folk to help the people of Sri Lanka. It was not raised for the Sri Lankan government to swipe 15 per cent for itself".
	Those are pretty tough words. I do not know how right it is that comments like that should be made, but they are troubling—particularly when I heard just the other day that apparently the Sri Lankan Government have authorised the expenditure of a considerable sum of money so that every Member of Parliament in the Sri Lankan Government has a new S-type Mercedes car. How can that really be so? If it is really so, where has the money come from? Have the Sri Lankan Government really, to quote the Sri Lankan-born director of the trust, swiped
	"15 per cent for itself"?
	The sad thing is that the horror that overtook so many people with such brutal suddenness, while it triggered great charitable responses from this country and elsewhere, did not in the countries directly affected stimulate great co-operation among all elements of society and among all factions in government and public administration. The sadness is that they seem to have seen the tragedy as an opportunity to advance their own partisan political purposes.
	I can illustrate that with details of what has happened to some small charities. As I have declared in this House before, members of my own family are involved with a charity called Friends of the South. They do not try to obtain publicity or to draw attention to themselves. They get down to the humdrum work of actually helping in a practical way the people who need the help—in many instances, in small villages and towns that are not in the headlines at all and many of whom are being bypassed and ignored by government and authority. I should emphasise that many of them are frustrated in their attempts to recover their way of life by pettifogging, stultifying bureaucracy.
	The awful thing about a country such as Sri Lanka—and one must admit that it might happen here—is that no one dares to take the responsibility for decisions. So, decisions have to be referred to committees. And committees, when they meet, look over their shoulders to see what the Government are doing. Over all of that looms the dark shadow of the president. She could have unlocked all of this with one turn of the key. She could have required immediate action. She could have required that her administration go out into the field to see precisely what people wanted. The tragedy was that neither she, nor the head of the LTTE in the Tamil areas on the north-east coast that were affected, were able to get together and put aside their years of strife and conflict. Now, just at the moment when she is reaching out to the head of the LTTE, when there is a prospect of some type of agreement and a package for settling some of their differences, and to ensure that the aid is distributed to the people that most need it, what do we see? Her power base is falling apart, because the other political elements that formed the coalition are refusing to go along with the plan and are threatening to walk out of the Government—the Marxist JVP being one and the Buddhist monks the other. Both are demonstrating in the streets and playing merry hell with the situation. They are not interested in what is happening to their own people who need help. They are interested only in gaining partisan political advantage for themselves. That is the tragedy. That is Sri Lanka's shame, too.
	I could give many examples of the frustration of efforts by others who try to bring help where it is most needed. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned the matter previously raised in this House about the government restrictions on people being able to re-establish their own businesses. The Government are, apparently, trying to use this opportunity to control and regulate the lives of the people. People do not want to be housed in government-provided housing, where the Government can choose that they should go; they want cash compensation, so that they can live in their own homes. They do not want to be shovelled off into a government-provided market centre or marketplace; they want cash compensation, so that they can restart their own businesses in the places where they had their businesses previously.
	There is only one solution to this: that we should ask for less posturing and more performance. I hope that, when she replies, the Minister will give an undertaking that there will be no hesitation on the part of the British Government in encouraging our high commissioner in Sri Lanka to make the strongest possible representations to the government of Sri Lanka that they release some of the relief funds so that they go directly to people who need them. Will the Government give an assurance, on behalf of the generous-hearted British people, that they will demand a full and detailed account for the expenditure of every penny of tsunami relief money that has gone to Sri Lanka?

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, I, too, welcome the debate and am grateful that it has been put before us. It is important that we are kept up to date with such experiences, with exactly what is happening in the tsunami-affected area and with exactly how our aid is being spent there.
	I was told only last week by the Disasters Emergency Committee that the total raised in voluntary donations in the United Kingdom has now reached some £350 million—the largest amount ever raised for any appeal of this type. That has meant that the immediate needs of some 5 million people have been met and that some £150 million of that money has already reached the people who are in greatest need. There is money available and that, of course, will be spent. The agencies in the area handle the necessary day-to-day work and the projects that need to be put in place, but over the next three years that money will be used for rehabilitation and reconstruction programmes.
	As other noble Lords have said, we can never appreciate enough the tremendous work that is carried out by these voluntary, charitable organisations and all those who have supported them over these past months. It has been an incredible experience to see how people have responded. The people saw the need and the people responded to that need. Some noble Lords have spoken from first-hand experience. I cannot do that. I can speak only from what we hear and see from the various agencies.
	Oxfam, one of our major agencies, says that this is the largest aid effort in its history. Over 1 million people have been helped and over £150 million has been available to provide that help. Its report states:
	"For once the scale of the response reflects the scale of the disaster".
	It adds, vitally, that:
	"Our long-term reconstruction programme aims to give people the chance of building something better then the poverty that existed before the tsunami".
	The reconstruction provides opportunities to alleviate poverty and to restore dignity. Due to the giving and the work being done, the people will enjoy a better life and will have something more hopeful to look forward to.
	The need for an adequate warning system has already been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Giddens and Lord Hunt. I am sure that we were all impressed when last week we were told that such a warning system was envisaged and that it would not cost a great deal of money, when one considers all the money that is needed for other efforts. For £1 million, we could have an adequate warning system in that part of the Indian Ocean.
	To me, the co-operation between the various agencies is fascinating. They have always worked together and helped each other—the need is greater than the organisation that is providing it. But 160 different agencies, in addition to United Nations agencies have been working in Indonesia alone. That is a tremendous number. It is to be hoped that this new spirit of co-operation will also continue and that it will have long-lasting, long-term, beneficial results.
	Some of the difficulties that have been faced have been mentioned. Some are due to the political, ethnic and religious differences in parts of the affected area. The tensions in Sri Lanka between the government and the Tamil Tiger rebels over the distribution of aid has caused and still is causing problems. On the southern coast of India the right-wing Hindu groups are angry with the local Christian organisations which are involved in the reconstruction programme. They are afraid that the Christian organisations are using this in order to try to make converts in that part of the continent, but the Church denies that there is any intention, in any way at all, of using relief operations to try to win Christian converts.
	The Andaman and Nicobar islands have been mentioned, but the anger there is different. It is that the central government have received millions of dollars and are paying out paltry sums to the people who suffered most. I have an instance of one person being offered 2 rupees as compensation. I might not be good on currency exchange but that is about 3 pence in our money. We must make sure that the tension between central government and local administration does not impede the flow of aid to where it is needed most.
	In Africa, the coast of Somalia was the place most affected; it was one of the few African countries that was affected. Between 150 and 200 people are thought to have died there, but thousands more were rendered homeless and many fishermen are still unaccounted for. But the tsunami could well have affected Africa indirectly in a different way, because it has focused our attention on the desperate need of so many people—on the poverty level of so many. This new awareness may have led to some of the increasing sensitivity in these past few weeks to the needs of Africa as well as of other parts of the world. When do we last remember newspaper after newspaper daily headlining the needs of the third world and the needs of the desperately poor? The tsunami might indirectly have led to that awareness and the new response to that need.
	Finally, this is an opportunity to build bridges between the rich countries and the poor countries. They have seen our response; we have seen their need. We must make sure that that confidence is maintained, that the pledges of aid and help are fulfilled, that the pledges are not forgotten or watered down. If people have confidence that we can be relied on to keep our word and to fulfil our promises, despite the horror of the tsunami some good might come out of it. They will say that there is the possibility of a new understanding. That, in its way, could be the main reconstruction following the devastating effects of 26 December.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, on securing this debate, especially as it allows us to expand on his Starred Question of last week. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that reconstruction is an area on which we should concentrate today.
	With the run-up to the G8 gaining momentum, calling for greater quantities and more effective aid, it seems particularly apt that we turn our attention to the unprecedented tsunami response five months on as a case study of what aid can do.
	As your Lordships have highlighted, the funds raised in response to the tsunami appeal were staggering, totalling over £300 million. With the UN Development Programme's disaster recovery experts estimating that it will take from five to 10 years for the countries affected by the tsunami to recover fully, I am sure that every penny will be needed.
	I would like to echo what has been said so many times when I commend all those individuals, companies and charities who have donated and continue to work so hard in response to this natural disaster. However, I am incredibly disheartened by the reports that have been emanating from the tsunami countries. While I agree with the UN's humanitarian co-ordination office that "the tyranny of rush: trying to get things done quickly can actually put us behind in the long run", the news that over 1,500 essential containers of humanitarian aid for victims in Indonesia—some of which have been there since January—are stranded at the region's main port by bureaucratic bungling and missing paperwork is, in itself, a tragedy.
	A similar situation can be seen in Sri Lanka where a quarter of the aid shipped after the disaster is still sitting on the dockside at Colombo. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the reports mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. That is just a small part of what charities are describing as chaos, and goes some way to explaining why the pledged money received to date is apparently achieving so little in comparison to what could be done.
	Admittedly, as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, reminded us, the Asian Development Bank has spoken about a shortfall of $4 billion between pledges and moneys paid, calling for aid agencies and donor governments to improve coordination to avoid overlaps and duplications. In relation to this, can the Minister outline the plan for the release of the total funds and resources Her Majesty's Government have pledged in response to the tsunami?
	However, there is a need to fight—or at least to try to limit—corruption and ensure that money is spent effectively. These latter issues are not ones that we in the West can organise for recipients. The recipient countries have to do more to help themselves if we are to see a return of momentum to this response.
	Local chiefs have to be persuaded not to siphon off their own shares of the aid budget, or insist that aid agencies use certain suppliers. There is also a vital need to address the fundamental disconnection between bureaucrats and reality. In Sri Lanka, new homes have been held up by a decree forbidding any rebuilding within 100 yards of the coastline, as described by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I find it absurd that fishermen are being offered houses five miles inland.
	My sources inform me that much of the new accommodation is in 1960s tower-block style, despite the problems that we have seen in our own country regarding the effects that these can have on communities and civil society. But perhaps the story of construction of temporary shelters in Sri Lanka provides the best insight into the failings of the relief operation. With your Lordships' patience I will outline the situation.
	The temporary, single-room wooden huts with tin roofs, about the size of a garden shed, despite alleged consultation with those supposed to live in them are almost universally loathed. The tin roofs turn the huts into ovens by day and sieves by night. Yet the Government persisted, despite warnings from aid agency engineers that these problems would occur. An internal memo seen by the Daily Telegraph on 28 May—as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Eden of Winton—admits that many of the shelters are substandard and will have to be upgraded, doubling work and resources to be used on a project that should have been completed.
	On top of this problem, many also complain that they have received only two out of five instalments of the monthly living allowance that the government promised them. In fact, it is my understanding that the majority of victims are still waiting for news of their entitlements as their cases are suspended due to the lack of relevant documents—documents, which, of course, were destroyed in the tsunami.
	Can the Minister inform me what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to offer advice and to persuade the governments of the countries hit by the tsunami that they need to look to themselves as well as to the West and to reform their systems and methods of working to overcome what may become an impasse in the recovery of their increasingly frustrated and angry people?
	Although this change is needed, we must not neglect the steps we can take. A report by an international team of researchers that was released at the start of this month highlights that significant human rights problems persist in areas affected by the tidal wave. Vulnerable groups, particularly women, children and migrants, are suffering from violence and exploitation. In Aceh, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka there is armed conflict. Children are forced to fight and people are living in fear. In Thailand, drought had led to a decline in agricultural production, which compounded the problems caused by the tidal wave. What is the Minister's response to the report? What steps are the Government planning to help to implement their recommendations for the protection of vulnerable groups, aid distribution and increased community participation?
	I have painted a depressing picture. However, not all is doom and gloom. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Eden, smaller charities that do not seek publicity are doing great work. Charities such as the Saga Charitable Trust are having great success at grassroots level, while many larger charities are getting stuck in paperwork. Following a strategy of filling the gaps, the Saga Charitable Trust has been setting up special groups, such as sewing circles that it provided with sewing machines. Most recently, it set up a bakery. That is aid going directly to those who need it. Not only that, it is providing people with a means to provide for themselves and get back on their feet. I commend the work that Saga is doing with what is, in comparison, a small budget, and I hope that it is emulated by others.
	The message that I am trying to get across is the age-old lesson that bears repeating in the run-up to the G8: no amount of aid is any good if it is not used efficiently and effectively. I repeat that to do that good governance, accountability and transparency are needed. While it is essential that donors honour the pledges they have made, and that we continue to look at the issue of trade, well-targeted, smaller amounts sometimes provide greater change for good, as in the work done by the Saga Charitable Trust, than large amounts of resources tied up in red tape.
	It is also essential that developing countries as a whole start taking responsibility for their own actions and holding their neighbours to account. For example, what good is the NePAD peer review mechanism if the African members fail to use it against people such as Mugabe? We need to break the cycle of all talk and no action and stir the world, not the West, to give more and to change attitudes to trade. But developing countries must reform themselves if they are ever to stand on their own two feet.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I add my thanks to those already offered to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for securing this important debate. Naturally, I share his desire to ensure that the Maldives and Sri Lanka, among other countries, get back on their feet as soon as possible. I endorse the thanks he gave to the NGOs he mentioned. I also join the tribute paid by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, to aid workers working in situations of conflict or areas of disaster. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, I commend the work being undertaken by the Saga Charitable Trust. I fully agree with her comment that we must endorse and fulfil all the pledges made to people in those countries.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Giddens that, while Africa is of the utmost importance, we cannot, and must not, forget poor people in other parts of the world. Like him, I am glad that global poverty is at the top of the national and international agenda. I am sure that in this year, 2005, we will start to make a real difference in the world. Like the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, I am an optimist. I hope that, after the dreadful devastation of the tsunami, some good will come out of it and some lessons will be learnt.
	As noble Lords said, an exceptional level of support has been given by governments, donors, NGOs and members of the public to the countries that suffered from the terrible devastation. But the overwhelming human and economic problems resulting from the tsunami will not be solved overnight. Delays are frustrating, but we must recognise that it will take many months and years for the reconstruction to be complete. That is not an excuse for delays, but it means that we must accept that delays will occur. The UK Government have committed £75 million towards immediate humanitarian aid, but, recognising the critical importance of longer-term reconstruction in the region affected by the tsunami, we have said that we will provide up to £65 million towards reconstruction.
	The scale of the response to Indonesia was great and the immediate relief response was effective. However, the Indonesian Government have been slow to launch the reconstruction phase and, to date, it has been driven by the people of Aceh, with support from local and international NGOs and the UN. The government-run Aceh reconstruction and rehabilitation agency has just started work, so I hope that the pace of progress will now accelerate.
	As many noble Lords said, Sri Lanka was particularly badly hit by the tsunami and more than 31,000 people were killed. The response to that country has been staggering, and more than $2.7 billion has been pledged by the international community. As a result, the initial reconstruction phase has been successful. For example, 1,600 homes have already been built and contracts have now been signed to reconstruct 163 of the 182 schools that were damaged or destroyed.
	The Government of Sri Lanka have been working directly with donors to implement reconstruction programmes. However, as noble Lords said, assistance has been slow in northern areas controlled by the LTTE, because it is classified as a terrorist organisation and many donors are therefore unable to work with it. To try to get round that, the government are negotiating a joint mechanism with the LTTE so that donors can provide reconstruction assistance in the northern areas. In the mean time, many NGOs are working in the north so that some reconstruction is taking place.
	Our humanitarian advisers in the country are monitoring the response and are confident that aid is getting through to those in need, but the Government agree that a resolution of the conflict is desirable. Indeed, it is an absolute necessity if Sri Lanka is to be a prosperous country that benefits the whole of its people.
	As noble Lords said, there have been delays in the release of land for house reconstruction. The Sri Lankan Government have banned building within the buffer zone that stretches 100 kilometres from the coast. The difference between bureaucracy and the reality on the ground is indeed baffling.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I think that the Minister meant to say 100 metres.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. I meant 100 metres. I beg the House's pardon. One hundred kilometres would be obscene. One hundred metres is slightly obscene but not very obscene.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pointed out so eloquently both today and last week in a Question to my noble friend the Leader of the House, people's livelihoods often depend upon where they live. It is clear that many displaced people are struggling to find places to build because they do not have land rights elsewhere. More information is also needed for the people affected. I am glad that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development is in Sri Lanka this week, and this is one of the issues he will be raising with the Government of Sri Lanka. He is also going to Indonesia to see what is happening on the ground, the effect of DfID spending, where problems lie and how they should be addressed.
	I understand the many frustrations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Eden, on behalf of people working on the ground in Sri Lanka. I cannot comment at the moment on the allegation about the Sri Lankan Government swiping 15 per cent of the budget, but I shall ensure that the allegation is looked into. I shall write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library. The noble Lord asked that representations should be made to the government of Sri Lanka. I am sure that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will do so this week.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to advise governments to help them improve governance. There are various programmes. The Government are working very hard to build administrative capacity with the governments of the countries which were hit by the tsunami as well as governments who are in conflicts or in developing parts of the world.
	I turn to the Maldives. Although the death toll was lower in the Maldives than in other affected Asian countries, more than one-third of the population were severely affected and 10 per cent of the islands were totally destroyed. Despite the extensive destruction, the government of the Maldives responded quickly and immediate relief programmes have been implemented. The government of the Maldives have launched, and are making good progress with, a national recovery and reconstruction plan designed to rebuild damaged infrastructure and restore livelihoods.
	On tourism, I am glad to say that the government of the Maldives say that the hotel occupancy is increasing, and they are keen to increase that.
	I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, to ensure that adequate money for reconstruction is available in the Maldives. However, it seems that, notwithstanding the devastation wreaked by the tsunami, the Maldives will remain a middle income country. Therefore, further relief will not be possible.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, can I urge that a Minister finds time to go to the Maldives? If he does, he will find that at least one-third of those islands are every bit as poor, if not poorer, than the vast bulk of Sri Lanka, which I know equally well. Therefore, the categorisation needs to be looked at again, particularly in relation to our EU presidency.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I well understand the noble Lord's very good point that somebody on the ground should look at the situation to ensure that the categorisation is still correct. I shall certainly feed through that point.
	The noble Lord makes an interesting suggestion in relation to JCBs. I shall also follow up that very practical suggestion.
	I turn to monitoring and evaluation. To ensure that UK Government funds are spent effectively in the region, DfID humanitarian advisers are going on a series of monitoring missions to affected countries during June and July to evaluate the support provided with those funds. My noble friend Lord Giddens was right to emphasise the need to ensure that there is no gap between pledged aid and aid which is delivered.
	I noted all the points raised by my noble friend Lord Giddens in relation to natural disasters and economic disasters which could result from globalisation. I shall undertake to follow up his points.
	My noble friend also stressed the importance of global risks. It is clear that natural disasters have a disproportionate and catastrophic effect on poor people. That is one of the reasons that the Government have been investigating the issue. As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton pointed out, some lessons have been learnt about natural disasters, but more needs to be done throughout government and current methods need to be improved. I trust that the Government will be able to assist with the training he suggests so that scientists and technicians have all the necessary skills.
	In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, £66 million out of the £75 million for humanitarian aid has been programmed through UN agencies, NGOs and DfID direct action. We are considering disaster risk reduction for the remainder of the money. As I mentioned, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is visiting the region this week. He will make decisions on future spending when there.
	I was very struck by the noble Baroness's point about the aid that was left in containers and not properly dealt with. I am told by my colleagues in the department that the international response to the tsunami was unprecedented, as we all know, and that that presented logistical challenges in particular. Therefore, it was necessary for the relief agencies and the affected governments to prioritise the items that were distributed, and I can only presume that whatever was in the containers was not a priority for the governments. I am sorry about that.
	To conclude, the exceptionally generous response following the Asian tsunami has meant that the initial humanitarian relief effort in all the affected countries has been successful. Any potential further consequences of the disaster, such as major outbreaks of disease, have been prevented. We are committed to playing our full part in helping to meet these exceptional needs. But six months is a very short time and the challenges of reconstruction are still enormous.
	It is of course absolutely right, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, that we should continue to monitor the situation. I welcome his suggestion that there should be a follow-up debate in six months' time. I have no doubt that in the mean time noble Lords will continue properly to question the Government on the issue, which has such a profound effect on the people whose lives and livelihoods were shattered by the Asian earthquake and resulting tsunami.
	Where I have not responded to questions from noble Lords, I shall do so in writing.

House adjourned at thirteen minutes before six o'clock.